From [Marc Abrams (2006.08.07.1357)]
[From Bill Powers (2006.08.07.0955 MDT)]
Marc Abrams (2006.08.06.0831) –
The details of how this all takes place physiologically is still >pretty much up in the air so I have taken a metaphorical approach in >>trying to understand the consequences of perceptual control without >having to be able to show “scientifically” that control does >>indeed exist.
Not totally up in the air – a good deal is known about sensory processes at low levels of organization, and a certain amount is known >about what happens to input information at higher levels, though not as much as we’d like.
Our perceptions are a great deal more than our just our sensory inputs. Yes, we have some decent knowledge about the psychophysics iof individual sensory inputs nvolved, but there is much we don’t know about how all of our sensory inputs, imagination, past experiences, and emotions it all comes together so we are able to construct our perceptions.
I tried to define levels that are at least not contradictory to what is known about the neurology (as of some time ago, of course). I >keep up with Science and Nature and have seen some corroboration of my guesses (though I wouldn’t have guessed HOW some >perceptual systems turn out to work).
I’m not sure why you feel you have to defend your position. I can understand why you took it and why you believe it to be so. I think there is more than one way one may view the concept of perceptions. There is no one “right” way and no “best” way.
Your definition serves your puroposes and mine serves mine. Our views are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, there is no reason why we both can’t be correct in our interpretations.
If I view a monitor screen and talk about the picture in terms of pixels, am I any more correct or wrong if I talk about the picture in terms of the colors involved, or the actions perceived? Each view is useful for different puroposes.
As a metaphor I can hold it out there and let people see if in fact >the facts fit the theory rather than trying to do, what I believe >>to be the impossible at this time, and that is to show >scientifically that perceptual control exists. I believe one day we >will be >>able to do so but not right now.
There are various ways of showing that it exists without necessarily knowing how it works. A simple test: try threading a needle with your eyes shut. If you can’t perceive the eye of the needle and the thread, you can’t do it.
Yes, but if you are suggesting that “seeing” is required than I have to disagree with you and this is my point. I can in fact thread a needle blid-folded. I do it by touch alone. By “feeling” the needle I can “perceive” it.
Did you see the paintings in perspective by a blindman. Blind from birth he is able to “perceive” and draw not only perspectives but in colors as well.
Again, perceptions are a great deal more than the sum of our sensory inputs.
Other types of tests show that if you perceive incorrect information about the effects of your actions, control also fails in just the >way the theory would predict. I think such tests are perfectly “scientific,” though I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to by >the term.
You can’t have “incorrect” perceptions. You may misinterpret what is “out there” but your perceptions are your perceptions. For each of us our perceptions are “real” even though they may not correlate to anything directly in the environment.
So what do we do until the right time comes? Sit on our hands? I >believe that there is much value in looking at perceptual >>control as >a synthesizing metaphorical framework for all of psychology and the >social sciences.
I prefer not to work just with metaphors, but you don’t have to satisfy my preferences.
Right, and I won’t. Like all good control systems I will satisfy my preferences. I would hope that each of us could see the worth of the others work and ideas.
That is, if PCT is the proper foundational theory of human behavior, >and I believe it is, than all other theories if legitimate should >>be >explaining certain parts of the control process, and in my research >that is precisely what I have found.
I haven’t seen any of your research so I can’t evaluate it one way or the other.
What would you like to see? What can I show you that will not elicit a defensive knee jerk response from you? What do I need to do in order to convince you that I’m not interested in overturning PCT with some new theory? What can I show you that would show you the value of the perceptual control metaphorical framework?
Bill, you have often stated that Cog Sci and Behaviorism each >represent a part of the perceptual control model and I agree, so its> >not as if everyone is talking about stuff from Mars.
Rick expressed my view correctly, if a little chip-on-the-shoulderishly. They both assume that behavior (action) is the end-product, >though they assign different initiating processes to their models. Thus they both miss the significance of the central fact of >closed-loop control. If you trace just the part of the control loop from the reference signal (“command”) through the comparator to >the output function to the environment where action is visible, you have the cognitive architecture. If you trace just the path from >the input quantity (“stimulus”) through the input function and comparator to the output function to the environment, you have the stimulus-response architecture. So neither approach can make correct predictions – they would both predict, for example, that if you doubled the sensitivity of the output function, the behavior would double. You have to use the closed-loop model to deduce correctly that the error signal would halve and the behavior would remain about the same.
Yes, this is what I remember you saying.
The cornerstone of understanding perceptual control in my view is >first, in having an understanding of what a “perception” is.
I’d put that as “proposing a working model of perception,” which we both have done. My definitions of the levels and their >relationship to each other came from examination of my own experiences and trying to see what I was taking for granted. Since no >actual research has been done to see how many other people would see the same things in their experience, I tell people not to >memorize these levels, but just take them as an example of how it looks to one person.
Yes, and our views are not mutually exclusive. They represent different views based on different purposes and needs. Although we are each trying to explain “control” our perspectives are different. Your focus is on causation, and mine is on the consequences at the organism level. We are looking at opposite ends of the cow. I’ll leave it up to you to decide which end you are looking at. 
For a PCT model and analytic theory, a signal is good perspective.
“Signal” belongs to a different universe of discourse – the explanatory universe rather than the descriptive. Descriptively, perception >is just what it seems to be: the world we experience. To say that these experiences are really experiences of neural signals rather >than direct contact with the external world changes nothing about experience; it just offers a different kind of explanation of >experience.
Yes, and our perceptions are a great deal more than just our direct experience with the environment.
The explanation is intended to be a proposal about how the physical system is organized, and that gets us into models, mathematics, physics, and all those other theories and constructs.
Yes, and as long as you stick to the “physics” involved you are on solid ground. Unfortunately our “perceptions” are in fact “mental” and not “physical” constructs and as such the “laws” of physics, mathematics simply do not apply.
Mathematics is no less a metraphor than any verbal explanation you can provide.
The intention is to find an underlying mechanism which, working with just the properties we have given it, can generate the kinds of> things we experience. I’ll be the first to admit that we haven’t yet gone a long way down that road.
Yes, this is your scientific, causal model and I wish you much luck in accomplishing this. My interest and expertise is focused more on the consequences of these control processes rather than the causes.
As to your classifications of perceptions, I have no objections to them, nor do I support them. When you figure out how to test >them, so anyone can perform the tests and come out with the same conclusions, they will have to be taken seriously. The same >goes for mine. I think that’s a way off yet.
Yes, but I don’t see why you think we are in some form of competition? And what would happen if I did produce a test? What would that have to do with you or your ideas? What am I not seeing here?
Regards,
Marc
Best,
Bill P.
···
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
