[from Joel Judd 930512]
Ed, David, other interested:
Last Friday on 20/20 there was a piece on teenage drinkers. Some
interesting controlled variables were implied in several comments
about, for example, how a person is more "outgoing" "talkative"
"social" etc. after a few beers rather than sober. Then a
researcher at the U. of Oregon (or Washington?) had a group of
underage drinkers together for a few drinks. They began to show
effects of alchohol consumption, and he asked one girl who said
she had trouble walking when tipsy to stand up. She did, and her
legs got wobbly, etc. Then he told them they were just drinking
near beer.
I imagine this phenomenon is not new to anyone, being related to
the placebo effect, but what might it suggest for a control
experiment? Can variables be imagined to change perception-
controlling behavior? Apparently so. How might we wean someone
for whom "being social" is important from relying on booze to
relying on his own perceptions? I have my own thoughts about
this, but would like to hear your opinions.
(Related to this was a news story last night about people who
are afraid to look in the mirror, or are obsessed with looking
in the mirror, because they think they are ugly)
Greg (last week)
Since when I'm ready, this Internet connection is not, I'll gp
ahead and address choice now, for what it's worth.
First of all, this seems to be a spring thing, since it came up
this month, and in May of '92, and also May of '91. In spring,
a PCTer's fancy turns to freedom of choice?
You gave me three diplomatically-stated alternatives, which in plain
English were basically (in order of scientific rigor) 1) my opinion;
2) my hypothesis sans model; and 3)my hypothesis within a HPCT
framework.
Well, I'll definitely choose #1, since this requires little more
than my statement to the affect I believe that choice (free will)
is involved, or can be involved in the highest levels of the
hierarchy. Or perhaps in a religious sense, the highest level.
However, as I mentioned before, I am willing to be clear about
separating my opinion on this topic from currently accepted notions
re: the hierarchy as Bill clarified last May (920515):
Any remarks I've made on such subjects (volition, consciousness,etc.
come from an attempt to understand personal experience in ways
that HPCT doesn't help with. Of course knowing that the vehicle is
a hierarchy of control does make more sense of some experiences.
However, I am leaving the door open for some kind of principled
reorganization, that may be the kind of "choice" I'm having trouble
explaining. Although he may not have meant it this way, I take a
comment from Bill later in the same post (920515) as offering the
possibility in his conception of reorganization:
But reorganization could be quite systematic in some way that is too
subtle, or too advanced, for us to find order in it.
As he pointed out in the paragraph following, it is possible to
conceive of a systematic, but not deterministic, reorganization
component.
So I guess maybe I can bite the second option, too: I hypothesize that
at least one's System Concept can be "chosen." That would, in effect,
determine behaviors in particular contexts where the concept
experiences error. But the time frame at these higher levels often
stretches out over days, months, and years. My concept of "family
member" is still changing, as is that of "American," "Mormon,"
and probably all the other high-level controlled variables in my
current make-up.
I don't know if that clarifies or obscures my reason for bringing
up free will. Personally, I think religious belief is most
powerful when proposing principles and concepts, and least so
when espousing particular behaviors. I think Christian scripture,
for example, contains concepts worthy of all human beings, but
nowhere does it (or any responsible religious-person) imply that
everyone HAS to adopt them. There are stated consequences, of
course--often stated in rather dramatic or archaic terms--but
there's always consequences to behavior, right? Isn't that the
very heart of PCT? The difference is that if one is satisfied that
the hierarchy is all there is (as far as we can SCIENTIFICALLY go
at present) consequences of "believing in God" or not are
perceived differently than if one holds belief in more developed
beings (not very SCIENTIFIC). And that's about where this ended
the last two times!
Regards,
Joel Judd
j-juud@inter.ui.clu.edu