Sequential Pct

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

From [Marc Abrams (2004.04.20.0943)]

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.04.19 12:49 EDT)]

Body states of readiness for action, etc. are themselves sensed. They
are associated with (or evoke) memories of experiences that >previously

included such body states. These memories are elaborated >into
imaginings of what might be experienced. As experiences are >remembered
or imagined, body states change in preparation for >action in those
experiences.

Be careful here Bruce. Yes, cognitively we 'remember' certain states.
But memory plays no part in any number of other physiological control
systems that contribute to emotions and feelings. BOTH types of control
are taking place simultaneously, and both contribute to our emotions or
feelings.

A loop is evident here. Any sensory input (from within the body as well

as from without) that is consistent with a given perception that is

imagined (expected, anticipated, hoped for, feared) adds weight to it.

If physiological preparations for controlling the imagined perceptions
(in >the event of appropriate input from the environment) are perceived
as body sensations, and those body sensations evoke memories like those

evoked at the inception of the process, you have a cumulative positive

feedback loop. It is not a control loop. It is an amplifier.

This sounds wonderful, only one teeny weeny problem here Bruce. :-)What
stops the positive feedback? Do you really believe you can turn your
'feelings' off and on at will? Do you really believe you have full
cognitive control over how you feel?

I will be doing some research into these questions with two researchers

Marc

Considering how often throughout history even intelligent people have
been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people who
are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something
different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.

Being smart is what keeps some people from being intelligent.

Thomas Sowell

2

From[Bill Williams 20 April 2004 9:40 AM CST]
Pct

From [Marc Abrams (2004.04.20.0943)]

>[From Bruce Nevin (2004.04.19 12:49 EDT)]

Be careful here Bruce.

Marc, do you realize just how very offensive this is as a way of starting a
discussion.

Bill Williams

3

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.04.20 12:20 EDT)]

Bill Williams 20 April 2004 9:40 AM CST --

> From [Marc Abrams (2004.04.20.0943)]
> Be careful here Bruce.

Marc, do you realize just how very offensive this is as a way of starting a
discussion.

Thanks, and I agree that Marc should be careful
:wink:
but it is offensive only if I am offended.

It causes as much trouble to take offense as to give it.

I'm not offended.

Marc, I'll respond properly when I get a break in work here.

         /Bruce

···

At 09:43 AM 4/20/2004 -0500, Bill Williams wrote:

4

From[Bill Williams 20 April 2004 6;00 PM CST]

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.04.20 12:20 EDT)]

Bill Williams 20 April 2004 9:40 AM CST --
> > From [Marc Abrams (2004.04.20.0943)]
> > Be careful here Bruce.
>
>Marc, do you realize just how very offensive this is as a way of starting

a

>discussion.

Thanks, and I agree that Marc should be careful
:wink:
but it is offensive only if I am offended.

This may be true as far as how you recieve Marc's message. I can tell you
that Marc's messge does offend me. As long as I haveknown you, you have
never been careless in your posts to the CSGnet. What Marc is doing is to
frame the discussion in a context which he is attempting to create that you
have ben careless. I don't see any evidence that you, in fact have been
careless. It is an obnoxious and offensive manner of starting a discusion--
whether or not you choose to be offended, is your choice. Whther or not I
am offended is my choice.

You say,

It causes as much trouble to take offense as to give it.

This maxim, good advice though it may be in some circumstance breaks down
when the policy it recommends is considered outside a comparatively narrow
range of situations in which it aptly has application.

What Marc attempted to do was to use an accusation that you had been
careless in saying what you did. I don't, and can not know in advance what
reaction such an accusation will have upon you. From experience I know that
in some cases such an accusation may have much more of an effect than might
ordinarily be suspected. And, there is not only the effect that Marc's
accusation may have upon you, but the effect that it may have upon those
lurking on the CSGnet. The work of S. E. Asch 1955 "Opinions and Social
Pressure." Scientific American 193. 31-5. and 1946 "Forming an Impression
of personality" journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 41 258-90.
The role of the effect with which Asch is concerned however, is ordinarily
easily dissipated by a simple indication of disagreement.

I do not at all object to a charge being made that someone has been
careless-- if the charge is true. In your case I didn't believe the charge
was justified. Not to have said so, might in a sense amount to having been
complicit and having with held information.

And, I , of course didn't at all mean to imply that you necessarily needed
support. But, people ought not be under the impression that false
accusations will be passively observed in silence.

Bill Williams

···

At 09:43 AM 4/20/2004 -0500, Bill Williams wrote:

5

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.04.20 23:21 EDT)]

Bill Williams 20 April 2004 6;00 PM CST--

people ought not be under the impression that false
accusations will be passively observed in silence.

Point taken.

My defense, if such it was, is not to hinder Marc, and to be as transparent
as possible in what I am saying. If he shows me something I overlooked, I
learn something. If he's making a lunge against something that's not there,
or onto ground that won't support his weight, I don't hinder him.

But I appreciate that there are other aspects to consider.

         /Bruce

···

At 06:28 PM 4/20/2004 -0500, Bill Williams wrote: