from [ Marc Abrams (2003.11.25.2133)]
[From Bill Powers (2003.11.24.2114 MST)]
Marc Abrams (2003.11.24.2200) --
>It seems in PCT, a perception is an afferent signal to one of our sensory
>receptors. Nothing more, nothing less.Afferent signals come from sensory receptors; they don't go to them. And
perceptual signals, while some of them do come from sensory receptors,
are considerably more than sensory signals. Most of them are functions of
multiple signals of lower levels, and not necessarily of the first
level.You're madly flunking your PCT exam here, Marc -- what's going on?
Sorry, I made a simple mistatement and meant to say that in PCT a perception
is an afferent signal(s) that is carried from the receptors to the CNS (not
neccesarily the brain). As far as your take on perceptions; I might be
failing PCT but I'm passing physiology.
If you're going to quote me, please guote accurately.The whole sentence
was
Sorry, no intent to misquote. A transcribing error on my part.
"A 'perception' means a neural current in a single fiber or bundle of
redundant fibers which has a magnitude that is related to the magnitudes
of
some set of primary sensory-nerve stimulations."
The phrase "related to" means that it is some function of these input
stimulations. "Set of" means more than one.
How do you think information about the environment gets into the brain?
ESP?
Not by your hierarchy. Getting to the brain is one issue. Having it actually
mean something when it gets there is another.
Your notion of perceptual constructions from receptors to a hierarchy with
increasing levels of sensory analysis is a popoular but poor concept and
leads to misperceptions. This kind of thinking has led to such things as the
"grandmother cell". A cell whose firing denotes the recognition of one's
grandmother. The fundamental problem with these concepts, and the line of
thinking that produced them, is easily exposed.
If the operation of each neuron represents knowledge of only a very specific
component of reality, to whom does this information get communicated in the
rest of the brain? That is, how could those neurons make themselves
understood by other cells not "in the know".
Would grandma disappear from our cognitive world if that set of cells were
to die?
A strong physiological argument opposing this idea also exsists. A sobering
fact is the truly galactic number of possible representations that the brain
could make clearly exceeds the number of available neurons.
This kind of thinking started in the 1950's with the initial seminal work
oof Wilder Penfield and Herbert Jasper. The pioneered mapping the functional
aspects of the brain with their work with epilepsey patients. Subsequently
others inappropriately extended their findings beyond there original
well-defined limit.
Of course these problems provide no problem for PCT or the hierarchy.
Who is failing what here?
Flunk.
What?
I hope
others reading what you say about PCT know enough to recognize the
distortions. whether due to ignorance, carelessless, or malice.
Maybe not Bill, why don't you point the 'distortions' out. I want to learn
where I am not being accurate. If all you can come up with is a simple
transcribing error that did not change the intent or meaning of what was
said or my mistatement about afferent signals, I afraid I don't know what
your talking about.
Malice??? you should be ashamed of yourself. You know I hold you and your
theory in the highest regard. I also hold Plato in high regard to, and I
don't believe everything he said either. You really shouldn't take
everything so personally. I can tell you from experience that it's a killer.
This has gone far past anything I want to participate in.
Yes, I can see where I caused some major disturbances, but those are things
_you_ have to deal with. I have been forthright and honest in my attempts to
'learn' how regulation/control manifests itself in human behavior. I believe
PCT was and is a bold innovative attempt at answering those questions. But
like Plato, Aristotle, Newton and Einstein. Your theory will not go
unaltered. I may not be the one to provide any impetus for change, but you
can bet you boots change will come.
Marc
Lots of hand waving and shouting. _NOTHING ELSE_ As they said in the old
Wendy's hamburger commercials; "Where is the beef?" Where is the substance
to your claims and accusations?
Outside of the fact you don't particularly like what I have to say.
Exactly what am I 'misrepresenting'? What kind of distortions have I made?
