[FROM: Dennis Delprato (941220)]
Bill Powers (941220.0930 MST)
If the reorganizing system worked according to what is _factually_ good
for the organism, then nobody would smoke, drink, do drugs, climb cliffs
and 29,000-foot mountains, overeat, or watch television. But the
reorganizing system is just a control system like any other: all it can
control are its perceptions. Evolution has provided it with sensors
which represent certain bodily states, and it is the output of those
sensors, combined with intrinsic reference signals, that determines when
reorganization will happen. These sensors sample the state of the body
...
Don't assume that every behavior that works in new circumstances
involves reorganization. If the rat already knows how to produce an
input by lever-pressing, it's already got the basic control system. But
if a naive rat really will learn lever-pressing to get saccharine when
it is already satiated, we have to assume that it isn't satiated with
respect to whatever perception is affected by saccharine. I wouldn't
want to guess too much -- after all, the point is to start with the
observations and _then_ find a model that explains them.
Why is it necessary to posit reorganizing systems? In other
words, cannot the control systems reorganize without the need
for a separate set of reorganizing systems? Does chronic
intrinsic error lead to reorganizing of existing control
systems, does it activate heretofore inactive reorganizing
systems, or does it promote formation of reorganizing systems?
Dennis Delprato
psy_delprato@emuvax.emich.edu
<[Bill Leach 941223.23:46 EST(EDT)]
[Dennis Delprato (941220)]
Why is it necessary to posit reorganizing systems?
I am not sure that anyone has answered what I perceive that this question
asks. The answer to this question is that a system based upon random
change appears to be absolutely essential to model what is seen in living
organism behaviour.
In other words, cannot the control systems reorganize without the need
for a separate set of reorganizing systems?
I think that this has been pretty well addressed except maybe to re-
emphasize that structure changes must be possible if we are to account
for observed behaviour without positing that all possible control modes
and structures already exist. Not only a rather unlikely concept but
such an idea has other problems with observed behaviour.
Does chronic intrinsic error lead to reorganizing of existing control
systems, does it activate heretofore inactive reorganizing systems, or
does it promote formation of reorganizing systems?
Much discussion has taken place on the net concerning (at least part of)
this question in the last year. The answer is quite possibly an only
slightly qualified "yes".
As Rick has mentioned recently, not much research work has been done in
this area. It seems that many "PCTers" feel that "chronic error" might
well activate the reorganizing system at what could probably be called a
"low level" of activity. OTOH large acute intrinsic errors may also
activate the reorganizing system at a high level of activity.
Though clearly speculative, an idea that the reorganizing system
functions within "regions" of the neural structure that are appropriate
to control system operation for the specific intrinsic error seems to
have favor. Such an idea would not necessarily preclude the idea that
persistance in intrinsic error could "enlarge" the scope as well as
intensity of reorganization.
-bill