perceiving another's belief

[Martin Taylor 2018.06.29.15.22]

In the following, I use "belief that X is true" as equivalent to "Perceiving X as having value 'true'". I use "belief" to help distinguish who or what has a particular perception.

···

--------

Last week I was having dinner at a sidewalk cafe at an intersection in Gastown, in Vancouver, BC. It was in an area passed frequently by taxis. As I had been wandering around town, it had occurred to me that a lot of these taxis were Toyota Prius, so while waiting to be served I started counting them. I counted 50 taxis claiming to be from a variety of taxi companies before I gave up counting. Of these 50 taxis, 40 were Prius's, 8 were a van-like Toyota of a model unknown to me (all from the same taxi company), and two were sedan Toyotas, perhaps Camry. All 50 taxis were some model of Toyota.

What was being controlled by the various purchasing agents that so reliably resulted in my perceiving that ALL the taxis I observed in that small sample were Toyotas? Clearly, the error in that controlled perception was minimized by their having purchased Toyota rather than any other manufacturer, so I ask myself what property of Toyota might a purchasing agent control? The agent might be a single person who purchased for all the taxi companies or a "Giant Virtual Controller" composed of all the different purchasing agents for the different companies. Or even might be an algorithm implementing control by some boss of some perceived property of the taxis in the fleet.

Three (of many) Possibilities:

1. A Toyota salesperson had offered a bribe that would allow the agent(s) to reduce error in their control of their perception of their own wealth. In this case, the fact that all the taxis were Toyota would be irrelevant, and no belief about their perception of properties of Toyota would be involved in the control of their perceptions relevant to their choice of model to purchase for their fleet.

2. Assuming that (1) is false, with high probability, and the purchasing agent controls for some property of Toyota that is nearer their reference value for that property in other makes of cars that could be used as taxis, then we ask what perception the agent might be controlling. One reasonable suspect is lifetime costs to the taxi company of using one car as opposed to another. In this case, we assume that the reference value for that perception would be zero, implying that the purchasing agent believes (perceives that) of all suitably shaped and sized vehicles, different models of Toyota have the lowest lifetime cost of operation.

3. Again assuming (1) to be false, the agent might believe that a person wanting to go somewhere would be more likely to use a taxi if that taxi was a Toyota model than if it was of some other make, which would mean the taxi company would have more clients by using Toyotas exclusively than by using a mix of makes. This seems unlikely.

Conclusion: One can never be sure, but it seems highly probable that the collective purchasing agent has a belief that Toyota models, and Prius in particular, have lower lifetime operating costs than do similar vehicles from other companies. We do not know whether this agent is one person, many people, or even silicon, but I think we can perceive the existence of the belief, without assigning it to a particular perceiver.

------------
I offer this example because it seems to me that it suggests (to me, strongly) that it is sometimes possible to perceive that a belief exists in one's environment, even when you don't know who or what might hold that belief. As with any other perception, the reality might be different -- that oasis one sees in the desert might be a mirage with no water -- but the perception is quite possibly of reality, in which case, somewhere in real reality there exists i some mind or minds (organic or silicon) a belief that the lifetime cost of operating a Toyota, and particularly a Prius, is on average lower than that of competing makes.

Martin

What is the definition of belief in PCT?

···

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.06.29.15.22]

In the following, I use “belief that X is true” as equivalent to “Perceiving X as having value ‘true’”. I use “belief” to help distinguish who or what has a particular perception.


Last week I was having dinner at a sidewalk cafe at an intersection in Gastown, in Vancouver, BC. It was in an area passed frequently by taxis. As I had been wandering around town, it had occurred to me that a lot of these taxis were Toyota Prius, so while waiting to be served I started counting them. I counted 50 taxis claiming to be from a variety of taxi companies before I gave up counting. Of these 50 taxis, 40 were Prius’s, 8 were a van-like Toyota of a model unknown to me (all from the same taxi company), and two were sedan Toyotas, perhaps Camry. All 50 taxis were some model of Toyota.

What was being controlled by the various purchasing agents that so reliably resulted in my perceiving that ALL the taxis I observed in that small sample were Toyotas? Clearly, the error in that controlled perception was minimized by their having purchased Toyota rather than any other manufacturer, so I ask myself what property of Toyota might a purchasing agent control? The agent might be a single person who purchased for all the taxi companies or a “Giant Virtual Controller” composed of all the different purchasing agents for the different companies. Or even might be an algorithm implementing control by some boss of some perceived property of the taxis in the fleet.

Three (of many) Possibilities:

  1. A Toyota salesperson had offered a bribe that would allow the agent(s) to reduce error in their control of their perception of their own wealth. In this case, the fact that all the taxis were Toyota would be irrelevant, and no belief about their perception of properties of Toyota would be involved in the control of their perceptions relevant to their choice of model to purchase for their fleet.

  2. Assuming that (1) is false, with high probability, and the purchasing agent controls for some property of Toyota that is nearer their reference value for that property in other makes of cars that could be used as taxis, then we ask what perception the agent might be controlling. One reasonable suspect is lifetime costs to the taxi company of using one car as opposed to another. In this case, we assume that the reference value for that perception would be zero, implying that the purchasing agent believes (perceives that) of all suitably shaped and sized vehicles, different models of Toyota have the lowest lifetime cost of operation.

  3. Again assuming (1) to be false, the agent might believe that a person wanting to go somewhere would be more likely to use a taxi if that taxi was a Toyota model than if it was of some other make, which would mean the taxi company would have more clients by using Toyotas exclusively than by using a mix of makes. This seems unlikely.

Conclusion: One can never be sure, but it seems highly probable that the collective purchasing agent has a belief that Toyota models, and Prius in particular, have lower lifetime operating costs than do similar vehicles from other companies. We do not know whether this agent is one person, many people, or even silicon, but I think we can perceive the existence of the belief, without assigning it to a particular perceiver.


I offer this example because it seems to me that it suggests (to me, strongly) that it is sometimes possible to perceive that a belief exists in one’s environment, even when you don’t know who or what might hold that belief. As with any other perception, the reality might be different – that oasis one sees in the desert might be a mirage with no water – but the perception is quite possibly of reality, in which case, somewhere in real reality there exists i some mind or minds (organic or silicon) a belief that the lifetime cost of operating a Toyota, and particularly a Prius, is on average lower than that of competing makes.

Martin

[Martin Taylor 2018.06.29.23.26]

So far as I know, there isn't one. I refer you to the first sentence

of my message.
Martin

···

On 2018/06/29 5:46 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

pyeranos@ucla.edu

What is the definition of belief in PCT?

      On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Martin

Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
wrote:

        [Martin

Taylor 2018.06.29.15.22]

        In the following, I use "belief that X is true" as

equivalent to “Perceiving X as having value ‘true’”. I use
“belief” to help distinguish who or what has a particular
perception.

        --------



        Last week I was having dinner at a sidewalk cafe at an

intersection in Gastown, in Vancouver, BC. It was in an area
passed frequently by taxis. As I had been wandering around
town, it had occurred to me that a lot of these taxis were
Toyota Prius, so while waiting to be served I started
counting them. I counted 50 taxis claiming to be from a
variety of taxi companies before I gave up counting. Of
these 50 taxis, 40 were Prius’s, 8 were a van-like Toyota of
a model unknown to me (all from the same taxi company), and
two were sedan Toyotas, perhaps Camry. All 50 taxis were
some model of Toyota.

        What was being controlled by the various purchasing agents

that so reliably resulted in my perceiving that ALL the
taxis I observed in that small sample were Toyotas? Clearly,
the error in that controlled perception was minimized by
their having purchased Toyota rather than any other
manufacturer, so I ask myself what property of Toyota might
a purchasing agent control? The agent might be a single
person who purchased for all the taxi companies or a “Giant
Virtual Controller” composed of all the different purchasing
agents for the different companies. Or even might be an
algorithm implementing control by some boss of some
perceived property of the taxis in the fleet.

        Three (of many) Possibilities:



        1. A Toyota salesperson had offered a bribe that would allow

the agent(s) to reduce error in their control of their
perception of their own wealth. In this case, the fact that
all the taxis were Toyota would be irrelevant, and no belief
about their perception of properties of Toyota would be
involved in the control of their perceptions relevant to
their choice of model to purchase for their fleet.

        2. Assuming that (1) is false, with high probability, and

the purchasing agent controls for some property of Toyota
that is nearer their reference value for that property in
other makes of cars that could be used as taxis, then we ask
what perception the agent might be controlling. One
reasonable suspect is lifetime costs to the taxi company of
using one car as opposed to another. In this case, we assume
that the reference value for that perception would be zero,
implying that the purchasing agent believes (perceives that)
of all suitably shaped and sized vehicles, different models
of Toyota have the lowest lifetime cost of operation.

        3. Again assuming (1) to be false, the agent might believe

that a person wanting to go somewhere would be more likely
to use a taxi if that taxi was a Toyota model than if it was
of some other make, which would mean the taxi company would
have more clients by using Toyotas exclusively than by using
a mix of makes. This seems unlikely.

        Conclusion: One can never be sure, but it seems highly

probable that the collective purchasing agent has a belief
that Toyota models, and Prius in particular, have lower
lifetime operating costs than do similar vehicles from other
companies. We do not know whether this agent is one person,
many people, or even silicon, but I think we can perceive
the existence of the belief, without assigning it to a
particular perceiver.

        ------------

        I offer this example because it seems to me that it suggests

(to me, strongly) that it is sometimes possible to perceive
that a belief exists in one’s environment, even when you
don’t know who or what might hold that belief. As with any
other perception, the reality might be different – that
oasis one sees in the desert might be a mirage with no water
– but the perception is quite possibly of reality, in which
case, somewhere in real reality there exists i some mind or
minds (organic or silicon) a belief that the lifetime cost
of operating a Toyota, and particularly a Prius, is on
average lower than that of competing makes.

            Martin

Belief as you have used it is the same as perception. There’s no need to use a different word than perception for “Perceiving X as having value ‘true’”. If you wanted to use belief to refer to the fact that you think person A is " Perceiving X as having value ‘true’" then I would think it a usef
ul term.

···

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.06.29.23.26]

  On 2018/06/29 5:46 PM, PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

What is the definition of belief in PCT?

So far as I know, there isn't one. I refer you to the first sentence

of my message.

Martin
      On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Martin

Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
wrote:

        [Martin

Taylor 2018.06.29.15.22]

        In the following, I use "belief that X is true" as

equivalent to “Perceiving X as having value ‘true’”. I use
“belief” to help distinguish who or what has a particular
perception.

        --------



        Last week I was having dinner at a sidewalk cafe at an

intersection in Gastown, in Vancouver, BC. It was in an area
passed frequently by taxis. As I had been wandering around
town, it had occurred to me that a lot of these taxis were
Toyota Prius, so while waiting to be served I started
counting them. I counted 50 taxis claiming to be from a
variety of taxi companies before I gave up counting. Of
these 50 taxis, 40 were Prius’s, 8 were a van-like Toyota of
a model unknown to me (all from the same taxi company), and
two were sedan Toyotas, perhaps Camry. All 50 taxis were
some model of Toyota.

        What was being controlled by the various purchasing agents

that so reliably resulted in my perceiving that ALL the
taxis I observed in that small sample were Toyotas? Clearly,
the error in that controlled perception was minimized by
their having purchased Toyota rather than any other
manufacturer, so I ask myself what property of Toyota might
a purchasing agent control? The agent might be a single
person who purchased for all the taxi companies or a “Giant
Virtual Controller” composed of all the different purchasing
agents for the different companies. Or even might be an
algorithm implementing control by some boss of some
perceived property of the taxis in the fleet.

        Three (of many) Possibilities:



        1. A Toyota salesperson had offered a bribe that would allow

the agent(s) to reduce error in their control of their
perception of their own wealth. In this case, the fact that
all the taxis were Toyota would be irrelevant, and no belief
about their perception of properties of Toyota would be
involved in the control of their perceptions relevant to
their choice of model to purchase for their fleet.

        2. Assuming that (1) is false, with high probability, and

the purchasing agent controls for some property of Toyota
that is nearer their reference value for that property in
other makes of cars that could be used as taxis, then we ask
what perception the agent might be controlling. One
reasonable suspect is lifetime costs to the taxi company of
using one car as opposed to another. In this case, we assume
that the reference value for that perception would be zero,
implying that the purchasing agent believes (perceives that)
of all suitably shaped and sized vehicles, different models
of Toyota have the lowest lifetime cost of operation.

        3. Again assuming (1) to be false, the agent might believe

that a person wanting to go somewhere would be more likely
to use a taxi if that taxi was a Toyota model than if it was
of some other make, which would mean the taxi company would
have more clients by using Toyotas exclusively than by using
a mix of makes. This seems unlikely.

        Conclusion: One can never be sure, but it seems highly

probable that the collective purchasing agent has a belief
that Toyota models, and Prius in particular, have lower
lifetime operating costs than do similar vehicles from other
companies. We do not know whether this agent is one person,
many people, or even silicon, but I think we can perceive
the existence of the belief, without assigning it to a
particular perceiver.

        ------------

        I offer this example because it seems to me that it suggests

(to me, strongly) that it is sometimes possible to perceive
that a belief exists in one’s environment, even when you
don’t know who or what might hold that belief. As with any
other perception, the reality might be different – that
oasis one sees in the desert might be a mirage with no water
– but the perception is quite possibly of reality, in which
case, somewhere in real reality there exists i some mind or
minds (organic or silicon) a belief that the lifetime cost
of operating a Toyota, and particularly a Prius, is on
average lower than that of competing makes.

            Martin

Martin

Did you perceive beliefs or did you infer them from what you perceived or is there any difference?

Eetu (from mobile / kännykästä)

···

From: Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:10:36 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: perceiving another’s belief

[Martin Taylor 2018.06.29.15.22]

In the following, I use “belief that X is true” as equivalent to

“Perceiving X as having value ‘true’”. I use “belief” to help

distinguish who or what has a particular perception.


Last week I was having dinner at a sidewalk cafe at an intersection in

Gastown, in Vancouver, BC. It was in an area passed frequently by taxis.

As I had been wandering around town, it had occurred to me that a lot of

these taxis were Toyota Prius, so while waiting to be served I started

counting them. I counted 50 taxis claiming to be from a variety of taxi

companies before I gave up counting. Of these 50 taxis, 40 were Prius’s,

8 were a van-like Toyota of a model unknown to me (all from the same

taxi company), and two were sedan Toyotas, perhaps Camry. All 50 taxis

were some model of Toyota.

What was being controlled by the various purchasing agents that so

reliably resulted in my perceiving that ALL the taxis I observed in that

small sample were Toyotas? Clearly, the error in that controlled

perception was minimized by their having purchased Toyota rather than

any other manufacturer, so I ask myself what property of Toyota might a

purchasing agent control? The agent might be a single person who

purchased for all the taxi companies or a “Giant Virtual Controller”

composed of all the different purchasing agents for the different

companies. Or even might be an algorithm implementing control by some

boss of some perceived property of the taxis in the fleet.

Three (of many) Possibilities:

  1. A Toyota salesperson had offered a bribe that would allow the

agent(s) to reduce error in their control of their perception of their

own wealth. In this case, the fact that all the taxis were Toyota would

be irrelevant, and no belief about their perception of properties of

Toyota would be involved in the control of their perceptions relevant to

their choice of model to purchase for their fleet.

  1. Assuming that (1) is false, with high probability, and the purchasing

agent controls for some property of Toyota that is nearer their

reference value for that property in other makes of cars that could be

used as taxis, then we ask what perception the agent might be

controlling. One reasonable suspect is lifetime costs to the taxi

company of using one car as opposed to another. In this case, we assume

that the reference value for that perception would be zero, implying

that the purchasing agent believes (perceives that) of all suitably

shaped and sized vehicles, different models of Toyota have the lowest

lifetime cost of operation.

  1. Again assuming (1) to be false, the agent might believe that a person

wanting to go somewhere would be more likely to use a taxi if that taxi

was a Toyota model than if it was of some other make, which would mean

the taxi company would have more clients by using Toyotas exclusively

than by using a mix of makes. This seems unlikely.

Conclusion: One can never be sure, but it seems highly probable that the

collective purchasing agent has a belief that Toyota models, and Prius

in particular, have lower lifetime operating costs than do similar

vehicles from other companies. We do not know whether this agent is one

person, many people, or even silicon, but I think we can perceive the

existence of the belief, without assigning it to a particular perceiver.


I offer this example because it seems to me that it suggests (to me,

strongly) that it is sometimes possible to perceive that a belief exists

in one’s environment, even when you don’t know who or what might hold

that belief. As with any other perception, the reality might be

different – that oasis one sees in the desert might be a mirage with no

water – but the perception is quite possibly of reality, in which case,

somewhere in real reality there exists i some mind or minds (organic or

silicon) a belief that the lifetime cost of operating a Toyota, and

particularly a Prius, is on average lower than that of competing makes.

Martin

[Martin Taylor 2018.06.30.23.06]

That's a rather deep question, I think, and I don't have a good

answer (though see a glib answer midway through this message). Firstly, I was conscious of the perception that there must be a
belief about a property of Toyota held by someone. But the
perceptions that are the outputs of the perceptual functions in the
existing hierarchy are not necessarily conscious, and for
controlling them they normally are not conscious. Conscious
perceptions may be (and according to Powers are) produced from
perceptions in the hierarchy, but they are not the same thing, so
you are asking about their relationship. Can conscious perceptions
be arbitrarily constructed from the outputs of perceptual functions
in the hierarchy by association and logical operations that are
consciously performed? That’s what I would call Inference.
Whatever the answer, the result is that I perceive some state in the
world to have a particular value. Beforehand, I perceived the world
of taxi purchasers of Vancouver without any particular properties
that I can think of. Afterwards I perceived that part of the world
differently, in that in it I perceive that there exists a belief
(perception) in the taxi purchasers of Vancouver that Toyota
vehicles have some property that allows the purchaser(s) to reduce
error in a perception they control by buying Toyota more than it is
reduced by buying another make. Does it matter how I came to
perceive the World to include such a state, or is that question akin
to asking just what a perceptual function in the hierarchy actually
does when it produces an output value from a set of input values?
A glib answer to your question is that there is a difference of kind
between the perception and the process by which it is produced. I
perceived, and continue to perceive what I called the taxi
purchaser’s belief, and the process by which I constructed the
perception was to infer it from the pattern of other perceptions,
some of which I might also have produced by inferring them (e.g.
that a vehicle was a Toyota because it had a badge of a form that I
have learned to associate with a Toyota label, or that the car had a
certain configuration of its tail light I have associated only with
the Prius label). I presume I also had to infer that for a vehicle
to roam the streets with the name of a taxi company painted on its
sides and a particular form of roof symbol must be a taxi and that
someone in that company must have chosen to purchase it. Is the
count, which produced the result “50 taxis, all Toyota” also a kind
of inference, or is the inference that the majority of taxis
extrapolated to all Vancouver the only inference there, because I do
now perceive (believe) that most of the taxis in Vancouver are
Toyota?
I think you can go back quite a way before you get to a perceptual
function that has reorganized into forming part of my hierarchy
because I had sometimes wanted to control it.
So we come back to Philip’s earlier question about whether “belief”
has a definition within PCT. I said, and still say, that I don’t
think it does, but now I will suggest that it might be reasonable to
use the word “belief” for a conscious perception of some aspect of
the world for which the perception is reasonably stable in value.
What is “reasonably stable”? I wouldn’t like to specify, except to
say that maybe it’s a progressive thing, in that the longer the
value of a conscious perception stays stable (or is effectively
controlled by me) the more likely I am to call it a “belief”.
I know this answer is unsatisfactory, but most of what we theorize
about is the non-conscious perceptions in the hierarchy, while most
of our current perception of the way the world is has at some point
been conscious, and much of it is recalled from memory in a way that
seems different from Powers’s imagination loop. Maybe it isn’t
different, but to me it seems so. Our understanding of the relation
between conscious and unconscious perception is not very substantial
— or at least mine is not. It gets into all sorts of areas, such as
learning to learn, MoL, and complexities of that kind. There’s a
Universe of theory-experiment feedback interactions to be done
before those complexities are sorted out.
Martin

···

On 2018/06/30 3:42 PM, Eetu Pikkarainen
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi

Martin

      Did you perceive beliefs or did you infer them from what you

perceived or is there any difference?

Eetu (from mobile / kännykästä)


From:
Martin Taylor Friday, June 29, 2018 11:10:36 PM
perceiving another’s belief

[Martin Taylor 2018.06.29.15.22]

        In the following, I use "belief that X is true" as

equivalent to

        "Perceiving X as having value 'true'". I use "belief" to

help

        distinguish who or what has a particular perception.



        --------



        Last week I was having dinner at a sidewalk cafe at an

intersection in

        Gastown, in Vancouver, BC. It was in an area passed

frequently by taxis.

        As I had been wandering around town, it had occurred to me

that a lot of

        these taxis were Toyota Prius, so while waiting to be served

I started

        counting them. I counted 50 taxis claiming to be from a

variety of taxi

        companies before I gave up counting. Of these 50 taxis, 40

were Prius’s,

        8 were a van-like Toyota of a model unknown to me (all from

the same

        taxi company), and two were sedan Toyotas, perhaps Camry.

All 50 taxis

        were some model of Toyota.



        What was being controlled by the various purchasing agents

that so

        reliably resulted in my perceiving that ALL the taxis I

observed in that

        small sample were Toyotas? Clearly, the error in that

controlled

        perception was minimized by their having purchased Toyota

rather than

        any other manufacturer, so I ask myself what property of

Toyota might a

        purchasing agent control? The agent might be a single person

who

        purchased for all the taxi companies or a "Giant Virtual

Controller"

        composed of all the different purchasing agents for the

different

        companies. Or even might be an algorithm implementing

control by some

        boss of some perceived property of the taxis in the fleet.



        Three (of many) Possibilities:



        1. A Toyota salesperson had offered a bribe that would allow

the

        agent(s) to reduce error in their control of their

perception of their

        own wealth. In this case, the fact that all the taxis were

Toyota would

        be irrelevant, and no belief about their perception of

properties of

        Toyota would be involved in the control of their perceptions

relevant to

        their choice of model to purchase for their fleet.



        2. Assuming that (1) is false, with high probability, and

the purchasing

        agent controls for some property of Toyota that is nearer

their

        reference value for that property in other makes of cars

that could be

        used as taxis, then we ask what perception the agent might

be

        controlling. One reasonable suspect is lifetime costs to the

taxi

        company of using one car as opposed to another. In this

case, we assume

        that the reference value for that perception would be zero,

implying

        that the purchasing agent believes (perceives that) of all

suitably

        shaped and sized vehicles, different models of Toyota have

the lowest

        lifetime cost of operation.



        3. Again assuming (1) to be false, the agent might believe

that a person

        wanting to go somewhere would be more likely to use a taxi

if that taxi

        was a Toyota model than if it was of some other make, which

would mean

        the taxi company would have more clients by using Toyotas

exclusively

        than by using a mix of makes. This seems unlikely.



        Conclusion: One can never be sure, but it seems highly

probable that the

        collective purchasing agent has a belief that Toyota models,

and Prius

        in particular, have lower lifetime operating costs than do

similar

        vehicles from other companies. We do not know whether this

agent is one

        person, many people, or even silicon, but I think we can

perceive the

        existence of the belief, without assigning it to a

particular perceiver.

        ------------

        I offer this example because it seems to me that it suggests

(to me,

        strongly) that it is sometimes possible to perceive that a

belief exists

        in one's environment, even when you don't know who or what

might hold

        that belief. As with any other perception, the reality might

be

        different -- that oasis one sees in the desert might be a

mirage with no

        water -- but the perception is quite possibly of reality, in

which case,

        somewhere in real reality there exists i some mind or minds

(organic or

        silicon) a belief that the lifetime cost of operating a

Toyota, and

        particularly a Prius, is on average lower than that of

competing makes.

        Martin

csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent:
**To:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: