[Martin Taylor 2018.01.16.14.32]
That is a statement about conscious perception, not about the
workings of the perceptual hierarchy. Mixing the two as though they
were the same is a dangerous exercise, almost designed to create
misunderstandings. Within the hierarchy, the term “point of view”
can represent only the position of a perceptual function that has an
output that signals how well the signals from lower in the hierarchy
match its “point of view”. Even in this usage, the term is a bit
misleading. No single controller at level n+1 perceives just one
signal from level n. If it did, it would be a level n controller.
What you are aware of is from a point of view, but awareness is
unlikely to be within the control hierarchy.
Martin
···
Comment on another statement in…
[From Bruce Nevin (2018.01.16.13:27)]
…
RM: ... a control system that can have a program "point
of view", to use Bill’s felicitous expression for it.
Yes, I like the phrase "point of view" and the concept.
Bill used it to emphasize that when your awareness is on
control of perceptual inputs handed up from level n ,
the point of view is from level n+1.
[From Rick Marken (2018.01.17.0920)]
···
Martin Taylor (2018.01.16.14.32)–
RM: ... a control system that can have a program "point
of view", to use Bill’s felicitous expression for it.Â
BN: Yes, I like the phrase "point of view" and the concept.
Bill used it to emphasize that when your awareness is on
control of perceptual inputs handed up from level n ,
the point of view is from level n+1.
MT: That is a statement about conscious perception, not about the
workings of the perceptual hierarchy.
RM: I agree that the phrase “point of view” is often used to refer to a consciousness (or attention) phenomenon. But I think it can also be used to refer to the workings of the perceptual hierarchy. That’s how I used it and I believe that’s how Bill often used it. When I say that a control system "like a person) can have a “program point of view” I mean that it can perceive the world in terms of programs, like the ones Bill mentioned: building a house, going shopping, looking for glasses. In order to have a program point of view we have to have perceptual functions that perceive programs. Similarly, in order to have an “objects point of view” (possibly the most common on) we have to have perceptual functions that perceive configurations; in order to have a “principles point of view” we have to have perceptual functions that perceive principles. So while having a point of view implies that you are aware of your experience in terms of a certain type of perceptual variable, it also implies that you have the perceptual functions that allow you to be aware of your experience in that way.Â
BestÂ
Rick
Â
Mixing the two as though they
were the same is a dangerous exercise, almost designed to create
misunderstandings. Within the hierarchy, the term “point of view”
can represent only the position of a perceptual function that has an
output that signals how well the signals from lower in the hierarchy
match its “point of view”. Even in this usage, the term is a bit
misleading. No single controller at level n+1 perceives just one
signal from level n. If it did, it would be a level n controller.
What you are aware of is from a point of view, but awareness is
unlikely to be within the control hierarchy.
Martin
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[Martin Taylor 2018.01.17.12.39]
[From Rick Marken (2018.01.17.0920)]
Yes, all true. That is the way I would use the term, and as I
thought you did in your original comment, but I interpreted Bruce’s
comment as saying that if there is a perceptual function that
perceives the world in terms of programs at level n as an element of
a program perception control loop, then a “program point of view”
must be from elsewhere, in particular level n+1. That sounds like a
conscious awareness of the relationship between levels n and n+1.
Maybe YAM (Yet Another Misunderstanding).
Martin
···
Martin Taylor (2018.01.16.14.32)–
RM: ... a control system that can have a
program “point of view”, to use Bill’s
felicitous expression for it.
BN: Yes, I like the phrase "point of view" and
the concept. Bill used it to emphasize that when
your awareness is on control of perceptual inputs
handed up from level n , the point of view
is from level n+1.
MT: That is a statement about conscious perception, not
about the workings of the perceptual hierarchy.
RM: I agree that the phrase "point of view" is often
used to refer to a consciousness (or attention)
phenomenon. But I think it can also be used to refer to
the workings of the perceptual hierarchy. That’s how I
used it and I believe that’s how Bill often used it. When
I say that a control system "like a person) can have a
“program point of view” I mean that it can perceive the
world in terms of programs,