[From Rick Marken (2009.05.12.1130)]
Bjorn Simonsen (2009.05.11, 13:55 PM EU ST)–
I have expressed some statements I think harmonize with PCT. Do anyone think I misunderstand PCT when you read the three statements.
- When I look at a die showing five dots, it is the “picture” of the die “out there” I perceive.
I would not describe it that way. The die showing 5 dots is a perception but not a “picture” of something “out there”. We don’t know what is “out there” but our best guess comes from physics. In PCT we refer to the “out there” as physical variables, such as light waves, atoms, masses, etc. Call these variables v1, v2…vn. PCT views perceptions as functions of these variables; and different types of perceptual functions seem to be arranged in a hierarchy.
So the perception of a die showing 5 dots is, from a PCT perspective, a hierarchy of perceptions: intensities (of the brightness of the cube at different points, say), sensations (of the color of the cube and dots, say), configurations (of the lines and angles that make up the cube and dots), transitions (that the cube is stationary), relationships (relative position of dots, edges, etc), event (this is a die that has come to rest with 5 dots showing), etc. All these perceptions occur simultaneously. When you describe the situation as a “die with 5 dot” you are communicating only the perceptual feature that is of interest to you (configuration and relationship, perhaps). But the perception (according to PCT, is a hierarchy of outputs of perceptual functions of v1, v2…vn (what’s out there).
Saying to myself it is a “die” and that it shows the value “five” are “labels” or thoughts that I attach to the “picture”.
Yes, but they are actually labels that you attach to particular features of your perceptual experience; you are pointing (verbally) to the configural aspects of the perception and ignoring, for example, the colors, relationships, etc that are also aspects of the perceptual experience.
These thoughts have their input in my brain as distinct from the “picture” that has its input outside the brain.
The words, when spoken, are perceptions just like the die.
- When I look at a picture describing a political gallup poll with collumns and arrows pointing up and down, numbers and text, it is the “picture” I perceive.
I would say it’s a perception you have; it’s not a picture of anything; it is, again, the simultaneous outputs of many perceptual functions of the environmental variables that are out there.
Everything else, the red and the blue colour, the arrows pointing “up” and “down” are words and thoughts I attach to my perception of the “picture”.
I think the colors and arrows are as much a part of your perception of the Gallup poll data as is the rest of it; it’s all perception. You can use words to describe some aspects of the perception but I don’t think any aspect of what I am perceiving is “just words”, except of course for the words;-)
They are houghts that give meaning to myself and to others.
Words are perceptions that point to other perceptions; in this sense they have meaning. The meaning of a word (I think) is the perception to which it points. And many of these perceptions aer clearny not pictures. For example, what is the picture that corresponds to “on” or “that”.
The words and thoughts are organized (learned) earlyer in time. And there are different reasons why they are attached to my perception of the “picture”.
Yes, this makes sense, except for the"picture" part. Perception is not a picture; it is a set of functions of environmental variables.
- When I see a woman coming against me on the street, I perceive a “picture” of a person.
Again, I would say that you see a collection of outputs of perceptual functions that, at a particular level, are a perception that you would call woman (probably this is a perception at the category level of the hierarchy of perceptions).
My “labels” and thoughts tell me that it is a woman
Actually, I think what “tells you” this is the output of a perceptual function at the category level of perception. There are a lot of other aspects of this perception – very pleasant aspects, I might add – that are well below the category level;-)
that she is coming toward me and that I should wish to dance with her and that she looks intelligent are “labels” and thoughts that for one or another reason are attached to the “picture”. These “labels” and thoughts are organized in my brain earlyer in time.
What do you say?
Perception is a very difficult topic. But I would say the best way to understand the PCT model of perception is to try to build models that control various perceptions. You might also take a look at my spreadsheet hierarchy and think about what perceptions are being controlled in that situation and whether it seems like any of these are “pictures” of what is out there.
Best regards
Rick
···
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com