<Bob Clark (940413.1503 EDT)>
Bill Leach (940408.21:31 EST(EDT)Subject: Re: From A PopPCTer
I think that there is some conjecture that possibly the rate of
reorganizating {stet} "operations" may be a function of the
magnitude of the error.
In B:CP, p185, this is stated very directly:
"_intrinsic_ _error_ _drives_ _reorganization_"
This has been an essential part of the definition of the Reorganizing
System since Bill proposed it (before 1960) as an explanation for
learning that occurs without participation of the learned systems.
I think that I have even read that it might be a "fundamental part"
of the idea of a DME.
I don't know what you may or may not have read. In any case, the DME
uses the learned systems to anticipate and solve or avoid problems.
Thus the individual avoids the disruption intrinsic to the operation
of the Reorganizing System. But, in the last resort, when the DME
reaches its limits, the Reorganizing System goes into operation --
trusting, so to speak, in lucky accidents as it acts randomly.
In any event, I have a tough problem accepting that we can not
change "perceptions" without reorganization. I "feel" like when you
are controlling a perceptions and upon calm rational consideration
believe that this perception is not consistent with another more
important goal and choose to no longer attempt control of the first
perception that this volitional act does not require
reorganization...
These are among the reasons for defining the DME such that it can
accomplish these results without need for the disruption and side
effects of the Reorganizing System.
Regards, Bob Clark