From [Marc Abrams (2006,08.05.1705)]
One way of interpreting the PCT hierarchy is to think of the lower levels as being the "concrete"attributes (i.e. the physical) of a perception and as you go up the hierarchy things become more abstract or “mental”.
The labels associated with each level are of course arbitrary and will differ depending on the level of abstraction the hierarchy is set in.
Like the block diagram that can be used profitably for looking at any control process, the hierarchy could very well differ if you are looking at the control process from the perspective of a cell or that of organ systems.
There is no one “right” way to view this. From the perspective of PCT, viewing the inputs and outputs to each of the control process functions makes good modeling sense and theoretic sense but I’m afraid it causes some problems when you try to understand exactly what a perception is from the perspective of an organism
From a PCT perspective a “perception” is simply our sensory input, but I believe this is too narrow a definition to be useful in understanding what a perception actually is.
When Rick says that we are capable of perceiving the same things he is talking about the physical attributes we all sense, and to this extent I believe we do “perceive” the same physical realities. The problems and issues begin to occur when we start attaching “meaning” and our individual value systems into what we sense and feel.
For instance; I think we could all agree that a table is indeed a table. We also may agree on what material the table is made of and if we don’t know we can check and find it out. But once we start placing “values” on it, like, I think its pretty, or I think its worth a million dollars our perceptions will more often than not diverge from each other
Much research has gone into perceptions and I think the Gestalt view is the most powerful. That is, we tend to perceive things as"wholes" rather than as pieces or parts.
So it is with this in mind that I think it might be useful, at least in the higher levels of abstractions (organism) to think of perceptions as collections of sensations.
Our perceptions are constructed from our sensory inputs, our expectations (imagination), past experiences(memory), and emotions. Every perception has an emotional component to it.
I am suggesting this not as a change in PCT, but as a useful way of viewing perceptual control from a higher level of abstraction. I also think that with a view such as this the hierarchy (I still like an influence network ;-)) can perhaps be studied more fruitfully
Regards,
Marc
···
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.