<Bob Clark (949698.1057 EDT)>
Mary Powers (940517) Subject: Misc, from Mary
Mary Powers (940528) Subject: Misunderstood Post
Mary Powers (940605.30) Subject: Planned Action
Bob Clark (940516.1130 EDT) Subject: ORIGIN OF DME - RKC
It seems that I assumed too much in my original post concerning the
ORIGIN OF DME.
In that post I considered the control of the two switches described
in B:CP pp 220-224. I considered four possible answers. These were,
quoted from the ORIGIN OF DME:
"a) the reorganizing system; b) pre-existing higher level systems,
"such as established programs; c) no control at all; d) an entity to
"be studied and analyzed."
Each of the first three have been suggested by others at one time or
another. The fourth has been considered previously under the label
In the ORIGIN OF DME, my discussion was intended to show that none of
the first three could explain the operation of these two switches.
Thus the fourth would be left open for investigation.
SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSIONS OF a), b), and c):
a) THE REORGANIZING SYSTEM.
In ORIGIN OF DME my comments included:
*a) The concept of the reorganizing system is very powerful, but it
*is limited to strictly random actions, and acts only when there is
*noticeable intrinsic error.
*In ordinary situations, there is minimal Intrinsic Error, so the
*reorganizing system, with its random processes, is not involved.
*Thus the changes in behavior resulting from operation of the
*switch-controller do not involve reorganization.
Your comment, Mary Powers (940517) Subject: Misc, from Mary, was:
It has been suggested elsewhere that the DME is synonymous with the
Program Level. This suggests that the Program Level produces,
selects and implements an assortment of Programs.
Without pursuing the question of the nature of the Program Level, it
is necessary for a program to have been created somewhere before it
can be used. And, if there is more than one program available, there
must be some means of selecting that specific program.
If programs are to be created and selected for application, there
must be some process somewhere to accomplish these results.
You, Mary Powers (940528) Subject: Misunderstood Post, also objected
to this concept. But you objected on the ground that it implied
"planned action." This is a separate topic, important in its own
We seem to agree that item b), "control by Pre-Existing Programs"
does not explain the control of these two switches.
c)NO CONTROL AT ALL.
Apparently my discussion of this "possible answer" was excessively
condensed. Here I assumed, tacitly, that the switches exist as
described, but there is no way to control them. This implies either
that they change settings randomly (perhaps via the reorganizing
system), or that their settings do not change.
If these settings do not change, the reference signals for lower
levels of the hierarchy will change only as external disturbances
require. The entire assemmbly is purely mechanical. Its performance
is completely determined by environmental disturbances of the
existing, unchanging structure. Actions in opposition to such
disturbances can be quite complex, but are essentially environment
Other implications of this alternative can be considered separately.
At any rate, NO CONTROL AT ALL is not an explanation of anything.
d)AN ENTITY TO BE STUDIED AND ANALYZED.
Thus d) becomes the only answer to the question of the control of
these two important switches.
Interesting and important questions regarding the nature, properties
and other characteristics of this entity are yet to be answered.
As an initial step in such a study, I have suggested that the
individual whose "entity" is controlling these switches must be
consciously aware of the process. This requirement would apply only
to "switching" of these unique switches. Many other events can occur
without such awareness.
As you have pointed out, Mary, one's attention can shift for many
reasons, often without conscious awareness. Indeed, attention can
also be shifted intentionally among alternative sets of perceptions.
Awareness can range from the simplicity of direct sensory perceptions
to the complexity of imagined structures, such as used in planning
SWITCHING AMONG LEARNED SYSTEMS.
Mary, your brief list of Barbara's activities demonstrated the
multiplicity of her learned activities. She is able to switch among
them as she desires -- or as she perceives requirements of changing
situations. And surely she is conscious of the process of shifting
from one learned activity to another.
Mary, I hope this helps reduce our misunderstandings.
Regards, Bob Clark