<Bob Clark (9512145.1440 EDT)>
<[Bill Leach 951206.09:39 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]
Commenting on: ><Bob Clark (9512055.1650 EDT)>, you quoted from my
comments on: B:CP a) The Hierarchy. You began with:
mechanical in nature. It is completely predictable ("determined"),
if the details of its own state as well as the state of the environment
are both given at the same specific time.
You suggest:
At a sufficiently fine level of detail, "quantum effects" appear.
I don't know what you have in mind here. Perhaps You should explain. To
me, all the combined "worlds" of physics (including Quantum Mechanics),
math, and chemistry are, in principle, completely "determined." I know of no
exceptions. If you do, please explain.
You quote:
With these assumptions, appealing as they are, both the Intrinsic System
and the Reorganizing System are included within the Hierarchy's
Environment.
Not sure what you mean here.
Within PCT there are four categories: a) the Physiological System, b) the
Intrinsic System, c) the Reorganizing System, and d) the Hierarchy. The
first three are separate from the Hierarchy. Therefore they must be part of
its Environment -- irrespective of their nature and of their
interconnections. That is, the Physiological System, the Intrinsic System,
and the Reorganizing System are all within the Hierarchy's Environment.
The real point being, that the concepts of having both "intrinsics" and
"reorganization" is pretty strongly supported -- ....
Yes --
strongly supported.
I was not, and am not disputing this. However they are only supported by
inference -- not by any direct observation or experiment. I am offering an
observation, not a postulate nor an assumption, that rather well supports
the standard inferences.
Repeatedly there are calls for more "experimentation." I am for this -- I am
primarily an experimentalist. But theory is essential -- without some sort
of theory it is impossible to interpret an experiment. B F Skinner, as I
recall, states that he is taking "a non-theoretical position" in the forward
to his book. He plans to observe external events with neither
interpretation nor explanation. Then he proceeds to invent his own
interpretation and terminology. This implies some kind of theory and thus a
corresponding interpretation. His theory assumes Complete Determinism,
attempting to achieve the rigor of Physics.
To me, the observation of the Autonomic System, as known by anatomists for
years, provides a useful basis for the concept of the Reorganizing System as
it is postulated. It seems, clearly, to function as the connection between
the Intrinsic System, that is the Physiological System(s), and the Hierarchy.
The Autonomic System has been ignored by Psychologists, and now, by PCT.
Yet it has been well known by anatomists for many years. The Autonomic
System is also not part of the Hierarchy. It is within its environment.
But, anatomically, the Autonomic System is in contact with the Hierarchy.
If we compare the Autonomic System to the Reorganizing System, we have:
I. Autonomic System
A. Input Signals come from the Intrinsic (Physiological) System
B. Output Signals go back to the Intrinsic (Physiological) System
C. Reference Signals are Genetically determined and provided
by the Intrinsic (Physiological) System
D. Input Signals also go to the Central Systems, and can affect
the Hierarchy.
II. Reorganizing System
A. Input Signals come from the Intrinsic (Physiological) System
B. Output Signals go back to the Intrinsic (Physiological) System
C. Reference Signals are Genetically determined and provided
by the Intrinsic (Physiological) System
D. Input Signals also go to the Central Systems, and can affect
the Hierarchy.
Because of these similarities, I suggest:
THE AUTONOMIC SYSTEM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH THE REORGANIZING SYSTEM!
These observations clarify various matters and can lead to additional
investigations, experiments, and studies, as I suggested in my
previous paper.
Comparative Neuro-anatomy is consistent with this view and offers many topics
for further study.
So also, paleontology supports a related evolutionary view of the
development of neural systems.
Quoting my remark:
But such random actions are likely to be too slow and uncertain for more
complex, planned, learning. A more capable System is needed.
You note that related ideas have been proposed in the past. They don't seem
to have been generally accepted. My thought was, if actions are truly
"random," they are not likely to be correct without several tries. Simple
situations may not need many "tries," but seeking to solve more complex
problems, such as problems in geometry, advanced math, etc may require many
"tries" for final success. This why we have schools for children - to
minimize the need for "random tries."
Referring to my having "missed" discussions of "creativity," "Freedom of
Choice," and "Initiative," you suggest:
you might have "missed" them in B:CP.
Yes, I "might have missed them in B:CP." Fine -- but please give page
references so I may look them up. Those I have seen, are rather
hypothetical and incomplete. Generally I agree with Bill Powers. But,
again, ad hoc assumptions are still needed to provide connections to the
Hierarchy.
Sincerely, Bob Clark