<Bob Clark (940616.2235 EDT)>
Bill Powers (940605.1400 MDT) Subject: Templates & memory; Control of
uncertainty
After quoting from Bob Clark (940605.1416 EDT) Subject: RKC-TEMPLATES
where I had commented:
*I find statements much like this in my memory of previous posts
*from you. I don't think my memory is identical to this -- my recall
*is not that reliable. That is to say, my available templates
*suggest past experience of this viewpoint, but certainly there is no
*detailed match.
You responded with:
If you examine your experiences instead of your theory about your
experiences, I don't believe you will find any templates -- that is,
a picture of my sentence "I rejected the template concept decades
ago" with the real sentence superimposed on it, leading to all the
letters lining up and matching perfectly. For that is what the
template idea implies, a point-by-point match of a real perceptual
field against a stored one.
These remarks puzzle me: I didn't think I was "theorizing." I thought
I was trying to describe my own familiar experiences, which I think
are common to most people. Namely, being "reminded" of some past
event -- in this case I was reminded of a post stating your views
about "templates." I specifically noted that my recall provided no
"detailed match."
You seem to be greatly concerned with my use of the word,
"templates," to refer to my recollection of the views you have
previously expressed. [My dictionary and Britannica references don't
seem to be this strict.] Apparently you use this word in a highly
specific manner -- ok, if that's what you want.
There are other terms available for reference to the concept I was
trying to communicate.
Your additional posts regarding templates, given your definition,
seem quite complete.
But they are not related to the subject I was trying to discuss.
Namely, the perceived experience of being "reminded" of some past
situation.
In the future, then, I will avoid using "templates" unless a very
precise, complete, application is needed.
We have both quoted from B:CP Chapter 15, Memory, pp 212-213:
*In associative addressing, the information sent to the computing
*device's address input is not a location number, but a fragment of
*what is recorded in one or more locations in memory.
You then point out:
With the memories of any one perceptual signal being merely the
recording of a magnitude (perhaps indexed by time), obviously you
can't have associated addressing that means anything.
True -- but the single perceptual signal referred to, was derived (by
its own feedback function) from lower order feedback signals. And
recorded correspondingly. Thus the "associated addressing" process
involves recordings of signals from assorted sources. Such
combinations must be perceivable more or less simultaneously, located
by "a fragment of what is recorded in one or more locations in
memory." B:CP p 212.
Your comment
Normal perception does not involve just one perceptual signal at a
time. It can't. ... A normal perception involves perceptual
signals in many control systems at the same time, all in parallel,
as well as signals that aren't under control.
Later:
The same is true of memory, because memory works through the same
perceptual functions we ordinarily use. To remember a single
perceptual signal would seem meaningless; it would just be an
amount of something. Only when we retrieve signals from many
localized memory stores at the same time do we get an approximation
of a normal perceptual field. And we perceive organization in that
field only from a higher-level point of view.
Those two paragraphs are consistent with my observations. I was
trying to use an abbreviated terminology -- we can hardly include
such extended discussions when trying to discuss other topics.
Indeed, I think many of the discussions on the net arise from everyday
language using short-hand references to portions of HPCT.
Example: the "Alerting System," proposed a few days ago. When an
unexpected sensory input (or set of inputs) occurs, conscious
attention quickly shifts to those inputs. Their significance is then
evaluated, they are then either ignored or followed up on. This does
not require any special "alerting system," it follows directly from
the concepts of HPCT. This can be discussed in greater detail if
desired, but the main point here is: no special alerting system need
be postulated.
But if you are designing an "early warning system," you may need to
provide a way to get the attention of an observer (who may be
day-dreaming of other events.) (eg: sirens to warn of tornadoes and
carried on fire engines.)
Regards, Bob Clark