Some thoughts and questions about awareness and PCT

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2015.10.20.17.34]

Erling, I realize you know that controlling something to a reference

value of zero is quite different from not controlling it, but some
of the more recently joined members might not, so I thought it might
be prudent to comment. Indeed, in the Powers hierarchy, I believe all the top-level
perceptions are controlled to zero reference value, no matter what
the stage of maturity of the individual and what the top level is at
that stage. What I think you mean is a shift from controlling that
systems perception to controlling a different, incompatible one,
much as one would stop controlling for a glass to be either full or
empty of water after one had finished drinking from it and was no
longer thirsty.
Martin

···

[From Erling Jorgensen (2015.10.20 11:00 EDT)]

…
EJ: This is separate from the question of whether it is
useful to have the particular Systems Concept of “being a
durable, separate self.” Certainly, Buddhist thought makes
the case that such a systems concept can be treated as an
illusion, because there are better systems concepts to live
by. I think this is an invitation, from a more superordinate
systems concept, to set a zero reference for that (former)
systems concept of having a self that needs to be defended.

[rupert]

[From Rupert Young (2015.10.22 22.00)]

This may have been said already, but there does seem to be a correspondence between awareness and error (signals). Pain, of which we are immediately and acutely aware, is error in some system. Similarly a loud noise or bright light (which triggers awareness) is error, which drives orientation. When we are learning a task, such as playing a guitar, we focus our awareness on desired finger positions, say, to get the sound we want. Once accomplished (things become second nature; well-organised control systems) we are no longer aware of what we are doing with our fingers, there is no (low) error in those systems; until our awareness is directed to a bum note that is (error again).

Could all awareness (even thoughts) correspond to error within our control systems? A goal of meditation is to reach a state of calmness where we have no thoughts, and awareness is suspended; a state of no error perhaps.

Regards,
Rupert

[Blake_Ashley]

[Blake Ashley (10/26/2015 at 9:14 Arizona time)]

Thank you all for your comments. I just returned yesterday from, appropriately enough, a week-long mindfulness retreat. Hence, I have not been able to read you comments as of yet. I will do so now, with enthusiasm!

Blake

[Blake_Ashley]

[Blake Ashley (10/27/2015 at 8:37 Arizona time)]

Bruce Nevin <bnhpct@gmail.com> 10/16/2015 4:15 PM >>>

BN: The perception of having or being a durable, separate self I take to be a
perception on the Systems Concept level, as the perceptual hierarchy is
presently understood. The objective evidence for this perception is that it
is defended when disturbed. Subjective evidence is the fact of awareness.
The *fact *of awareness is a perception, or at least some kind of construct
in memory. Awareness itself is something other than either a perception or
a memory. Can one be aware of awareness? That is near to a conundrum at the
heart of many meditation exercises.

BA: Agreed

BN: Introspection, memory, and observation suggest to me that disturbance to a
self-perception or self-image perception evokes emotion, probably always,
whereas disturbance to many other kinds of perceptions does not. There is
no particular emotion evoked by disturbances in the demos of LCS III,
unless difficulty controlling e.g. a cursor position is a disturbance to
some higher-level perception, such as a judgment of one's performance or
competence. B:CP and subsequent discussions in this community identify
emotion with perceptions of bodily states.

BA: I think this is critical. One formulation of the fixated sense of self suggests that it is a "tangle" of emotional body sensations and thinking processes (visual and verbal) and that bringing mindful awareness to that tangle causes it to separate into its components revealing the fixated self it to be an emergent phenomenon.

The different responses of the organism to error signals seems to be important. This is indicated by the fact that mindfulness techniques seem to be training those responses by deliberately invoking error signals and then thwarting the actions that would control the perception that is causing the error signal. For example, sitting perfectly still and greeting the error signal called restlessness with deliberate refusal to control the perception that would eliminate that error signal (by moving) and instead cultivating an attitude of "acceptance" of the perception that is generating the error.

BN:
In the brain, the amygdala seems to have an important role using these bodily states (emotions) to
categorize perceptions that are associated in memory with what researchers
call "emotional stress", that is, experiences in which an important
controlled perception is disturbed, generally (but not always?) due to
internal or interpersonal conflict. This categorization by association in
memory is done by associating experiences and bodily states (emotions)
together, so that either can evoke an imagined experience of the other.

BA: Another part of mindfulness "lore" suggests that we accumulate emotional reactivity. And I believe some psychological research suggest that emotionally we "get good at what we practice". Such that people develop unskillful emotional responses to environmental disturbances - shooting people for cutting you off in traffic, for example. Mindfulness appears to release this emotional reactivity so that practitioners over time notice that emotional responses to disturbance become more appropriate to the severity of the disturbance. This suggests a learned toning down of some aspects of some control circuits.

BN:
I suspect that the perception of a separated self consists of no more than
the mechanisms of defensiveness and reactiveness surrounding it.

BA: I agree with this if by "it" you include emotional body sensations, thinking processes, and a plethora of concepts relating to identity, such as judgments of self and others, opinions, affiliation to various groups (nation, political party, etc.)

BN: Quieting this runaway feedback is the basis of equanimity arising out of
mindfulness meditation practices. Bodily sensations and associated
perceptions are accessible as such more immediately. Experience is more
transparently evident without an encrustation of imagined perceptions.

BA: An increase in sensory clarity is one of the three mindfulness skills developed with the practice.

BN:
There is some interesting evidence that emotion facilitates or is
associated with reorganization, but the relation is unclear to me and can
be interpreted in a variety of chicken-and-egg ways. (There are some very
clear examples in vol. 4 of the *Collected Writings* of Milton H.
Erickson.) An ordinary PCT hypothesis is that reorganization is triggered
by disturbance to intrinsic variables. I surmise that disturbance to
self-perception is a threat to physical integrity (as though it were a
disturbance to intrinsic variables) to the extent that survival depends
upon mutual aid and alliances with peers.

BA:
Certain kinds of zen practice seem to be all about generating physical pain, mental confusion, sleepiness, fear, etc. continuously until the system is thrown into reorganization mode. When the reorganizing finally hits on deep equanimity as a means of correcting the massive overload of error signals, it yields a satori experience. I suggest watching this entertaining two-part you tube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjzEeSSL4o0

[bnhpct]

BN: I think that the “`tangle´ of emotional body sensations and thinking processes (visual and verbal)” is in the self-sustaining or positive feedback between the amygdala and the cortex.

BA: bringing mindful awareness to that tangle causes it to separate into its components revealing the fixated self it to be an emergent phenomenon.

BN: I quoted this earlier from some forthcoming writing: “There is a reciprocal relationship between the amygdala and the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (RVLPFC), such that talking about emotions increases activity in the RVLPFC and reduces activity in the amygdala (Lieberman et al. 2007).” The reference is to Lieberman, Matthew D., Naomi I. Eisenberger, Molly J. Crockett, Sarina M. Tom, Jennifer H. Pfeifer, and Baldwin M. Way. 2007. “Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli.â€? Psychological Science 18.5:421-428. [PDF: http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/AL(2007).pdf]. Talking moves attention to a point of view off to the side of the ‘tangle’ of body sensations-amygdala-cortex-amygdala-body sensations … MoL brings attention to a point of view that can apprehend both instigators of a conflict at once, the two higher-level perceptions that are using the conflicted perception in disparate ways. I suspect that the point of view is not always up a level, but often off to the side, in talking about the two at the same time. Analysis of transcripts of MoL might tell the tale. A worthy project, if anyone is up to undertaking it.

BN: ‘Mindful awareness’ is also off to the side of the ‘tangle’. Talk, including mental chatter, is activity controlling collectively controlled perceptions. Collective control very much involves–you might say is predicated upon, indeed creates–self/other. Awareness is orthogonal to all the activities in the perceptual control hierarchy.

BA: mindfulness techniques seem to be training those responses by deliberately invoking error signals and then thwarting the actions that would control the perception that is causing the error signal. For example, sitting perfectly still and greeting the error signal called restlessness with deliberate refusal to control the perception that would eliminate that error signal (by moving) and instead cultivating an attitude of “acceptance” of the perception that is generating the error.

BN: A couple of suggestions that may seem like quibbles. First, we don’t perceive error signals. The ‘restlessness’ is control activity.

BN: In the model proposed in B:CP, an error signal is an address that evokes memory at a lower level, and those evoked memory signals are the reference signals at the lower level. Memory is located at every synapse; in this case, at the end of every branch of the neuron(s) carrying the error signal to lower levels. But the memory at a synapse is only a replay of a neural signal. If it is only a replay of a signal as it has occurred in the past, I do not see how the superordinate system can vary the reference signal as means of controlling its perceptual input. I think the key is to realize that what makes an evoked memory signal a particular memory is its location relative to other functions in the hierarchy. The ‘addressing’ is accomplished by the neural connection, not by the signal. The strength of the error signal determines how much of the lower perception is requested by the higher.Â

BN: I don’t see any function at all in this for memory stored at the reference input, until there is an absence of perceptual input. I assume that there is a branch from the reference input over to the perceptual input, above the comparator. Consider: it’s not a memory until it is perceived as such. When there is no perceptual input, the memory evoked by the error signal is the only perceptual input passed up from that comparator, but no tributary perceptions lower in the hierarchy are experienced. Imagination is always on (no ‘imagination switch’) whenever an error signal comes from above. When there is also perceptual input from below, the signal continuing on above is stronger, and the lower-level perceptions are part of the experience. Error at a lower level results in imagined perceptual signals arriving at higher levels. If the input function at the higher level does not receive all of the signals it requires to construct that perception, branches of its error signal evoke imagined perceptions at other locations at the lower level.

BN: Second, yes, thwarting can seem to be a discipline, or a distraction, or the activity that one is allowing and observing. Isn’t that fun!

BN (20151016): I suspect that the perception of a separated self consists of no more than the mechanisms of defensiveness and reactiveness surrounding it.

BA: I agree with this if by “it” you include emotional body sensations, thinking processes, and a plethora of concepts relating to identity, such as judgments of self and others, opinions, affiliation to various groups (nation, political party, etc.)

BN: Yup. Could be your car that you defend. “He almost hit me!”

BA: Certain kinds of zen practice seem to be all about generating physical pain, mental confusion, sleepiness, fear, etc. continuously until the system is thrown into reorganization mode. When the reorganizing finally hits on deep equanimity as a means of correcting the massive overload of error signals, it yields a satori experience.Â

BN: The video is terrific–Darth Vader in the Zendo! Whack! Whack! On the 23rd gall bladder point. What, me? Addicted? Who? I’m probably too attached to figuring this stuff out to become enlightened. Oh well.

···

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Blake Ashley Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov wrote:

[Blake Ashley (10/27/2015 at 8:37 Arizona time)]

Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com 10/16/2015 4:15 PM >>>

BN: The perception of having or being a durable, separate self I take to be a

perception on the Systems Concept level, as the perceptual hierarchy is

presently understood. The objective evidence for this perception is that it

is defended when disturbed. Subjective evidence is the fact of awareness.

The *fact *of awareness is a perception, or at least some kind of construct

in memory. Awareness itself is something other than either a perception or

a memory. Can one be aware of awareness? That is near to a conundrum at the

heart of many meditation exercises.

BA: Agreed

BN: Introspection, memory, and observation suggest to me that disturbance to a

self-perception or self-image perception evokes emotion, probably always,

whereas disturbance to many other kinds of perceptions does not. There is

no particular emotion evoked by disturbances in the demos of LCS III,

unless difficulty controlling e.g. a cursor position is a disturbance to

some higher-level perception, such as a judgment of one’s performance or

competence. B:CP and subsequent discussions in this community identify

emotion with perceptions of bodily states.

BA: I think this is critical. One formulation of the fixated sense of self suggests that it is a “tangle” of emotional body sensations and thinking processes (visual and verbal) and that bringing mindful awareness to that tangle causes it to separate into its components revealing the fixated self it to be an emergent phenomenon.

The different responses of the organism to error signals seems to be important. This is indicated by the fact that mindfulness techniques seem to be training those responses by deliberately invoking error signals and then thwarting the actions that would control the perception that is causing the error signal. For example, sitting perfectly still and greeting the error signal called restlessness with deliberate refusal to control the perception that would eliminate that error signal (by moving) and instead cultivating an attitude of “acceptance” of the perception that is generating the error.

BN:

In the brain, the amygdala seems to have an important role using these bodily states (emotions) to

categorize perceptions that are associated in memory with what researchers

call “emotional stress”, that is, experiences in which an important

controlled perception is disturbed, generally (but not always?) due to

internal or interpersonal conflict. This categorization by association in

memory is done by associating experiences and bodily states (emotions)

together, so that either can evoke an imagined experience of the other.

BA: Another part of mindfulness “lore” suggests that we accumulate emotional reactivity. And I believe some psychological research suggest that emotionally we “get good at what we practice”. Such that people develop unskillful emotional responses to environmental disturbances - shooting people for cutting you off in traffic, for example. Mindfulness appears to release this emotional reactivity so that practitioners over time notice that emotional responses to disturbance become more appropriate to the severity of the disturbance. This suggests a learned toning down of some aspects of some control circuits.

BN:

I suspect that the perception of a separated self consists of no more than

the mechanisms of defensiveness and reactiveness surrounding it.

BA: I agree with this if by “it” you include emotional body sensations, thinking processes, and a plethora of concepts relating to identity, such as judgments of self and others, opinions, affiliation to various groups (nation, political party, etc.)

BN: Quieting this runaway feedback is the basis of equanimity arising out of

mindfulness meditation practices. Bodily sensations and associated

perceptions are accessible as such more immediately. Experience is more

transparently evident without an encrustation of imagined perceptions.

BA:Â An increase in sensory clarity is one of the three mindfulness skills developed with the practice.

BN:

There is some interesting evidence that emotion facilitates or is

associated with reorganization, but the relation is unclear to me and can

be interpreted in a variety of chicken-and-egg ways. (There are some very

clear examples in vol. 4 of the Collected Writings of Milton H.

Erickson.) An ordinary PCT hypothesis is that reorganization is triggered

by disturbance to intrinsic variables. I surmise that disturbance to

self-perception is a threat to physical integrity (as though it were a

disturbance to intrinsic variables) to the extent that survival depends

upon mutual aid and alliances with peers.

BA:

Certain kinds of zen practice seem to be all about generating physical pain, mental confusion, sleepiness, fear, etc. continuously until the system is thrown into reorganization mode. When the reorganizing finally hits on deep equanimity as a means of correcting the massive overload of error signals, it yields a satori experience. I suggest watching this entertaining two-part you tube video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjzEeSSL4o0

[Blake_Ashley]

[From Blake Ashley (10/28/15 at 8:31 Arizona Time)]

···

On 2015.10.18.1000 Rick Marken wrote:
RM: and consciousness (awareness and
volition) doesn't "talk" or think (in theory, at least).

BA: Agreed. Although in many people awareness and verbal thinking are so habitually combined that they are unable to separate the two, such that focusing attention on any aspect of experience is accompanied by an internal narrative. With practice, the two can be experienced as separate functions.

RM: So somehow the control hierarchy is able to talk (and reason) about
something that it does not experience (at least per current theory; there
is nothing in the PCT model that makes experience of awareness available to
the control hierarchy). So how is it that I am able to talk (and reason)
about the difference between doing something with and without awareness?
And how do we voluntarily shift our awareness from one place to another?
And why does awareness sometimes shift involuntarily (as when someone goes
"up a level" in the MOL without intending to). There seems to be an
interaction between controlling and varying awareness/volition that is not
yet part of PCT.

BA: Learning to move awareness around in the control hierarchy is a big part of mindfulness training. If I understand correctly, Bill Powers has postulated that awareness is needed for reorganization. And, it has been reported to me, that Bill postulated that the glial brain is a good candidate for managing reorganization. this would suggest that the glial brain is also responsible for awareness. And, since the glial brain surrounds the neuronal brain at every level, monitors it, regulates it, and exchanges signals with it, the glial brain would seem to be well-positioned to move consciousness around in the control hierarchy which might be presumed to reside in the neuronal brain. But I digress.

RM: I think the people who might eventually be in the best position to
answer these questions are the ones working MOL therapy, which is all about
moving awareness to the "right" place.

BA: It would seem that the ability to move awareness around the hierarchy more easily and effectively would facilitate solving conflicts by going "up a level" and so some of the benefits of mindfulness might be explained by MOL. But not all. If I understand it correctly, there is no way to solve conflicts that arise at the systems level through MOL because there is no way to go up a level. Perhaps this is why war tends to be about systems level conflicts - nationality, political party, religion, and so on. Very few wars arise out of conflicts about logic or language. Since the sense of self as a static thing that needs to be constantly reinforced and defended, and is a source of anxiety and suffering, exists at the system level, it cannot be resolved by a leveling up.

Thanks for your comments!

[Blake_Ashley]

[Blake Ashley (10/28/15 at 8:59 Arizona time)]

···

On 10/18/2015 3:23 PM Bruce Nevin wrote:

BN: An analysis of transcripts of MoL sessions might shed some light, and would
certainly be interesting. My impression from the videos is that at least
some of the time the next move on a path to the 'right' place is not up a
level in the hierarchy but rather 'sideways' to a vantage of commentary. A
description in language is not up a level, it's sideways.

BA: In a previous note you mentioned the form of mindfulness that involves body scanning. That method is best known from the Burmese tradition of U Ba Khin and his most prominent student, S. N. Goenka. But there is another well-known Burmese mindfulness technique pioneered by Mahasi Sayadaw and his most famous student U Pandita. This method involves verbal labeling of perception moment by moment. This would seem to be something of the verbal "sideways" approach to a vantage point on a level that you noted.

[Blake_Ashley]

[Blake Ashley (10/28/15) at 1:17 PM Arizona time)]

[From Rupert Young (2015.10.22 22.00)]

RY: Could all awareness (even thoughts) correspond to error within our
control systems? A goal of meditation is to reach a state of calmness
where we have no thoughts, and awareness is suspended; a state of no
error perhaps.

BA: Speaking only for mindfulness, and not other forms of meditation, what you have described is not a goal. Mindfulness seeks to INCREASE awareness and does not seek to eliminate thoughts. Mindfulness changes the way we process the flow of perception moment by moment, eliminating resistance to, and congealing of that flow. Ultimately there should be no resistance to thoughts arising or passing away. No resistance to emotions arising and passing away.

BA: However, when you say "a state of no error" I think you are on to something. Although I think error still arises, mindfulness somehow changes its impact.

[Blake_Ashley]

[Blake Ashley (10/28/15 at 1:26 PM)]

perceive error signals. The 'restlessness' is control activity.

BA: It seems to me that moving in response to restlessness is the control activity in that situation and it is being intentionally ignored. The emotional body sensation of restlessness is whatever the error signal creates to impel the control activity needed to restore perception to coincide with the reference. When we feel restless it is not because we want the perception of feeling restless. We want to move. But we don't. And if we do that long enough and often enough something changes.

BA: As to not perceiving error signals, that brings up a question I have been wrestling with. Somehow, when an error signal at a given level fails to control perception to coincide with the reference such that the error signal is eliminated, something else happens that invokes higher levels of control. Let me give an example:

Long ago, when my daughter was a little over a year old, we were playing on the kitchen floor, and I accidentally closed a cabinet door in such a manner that it pinched her fingers but I didn't notice. She got a panicked look on her face and finally blurted out the word "hand!". I saw the situation and freed her fingers. So here is how I analyze this in PCT terms:

Her fingers get pinched. The perception of pain is at odds with the standing reference perception of no pain. An error signal is generated and instigates an attempt to control the perception of pain by withdrawing the fingers. It doesn't work and the error signal persists. Something in this perceptual situation causes error signals in higher control circuits, ultimately rising to the level of the circuit that controls her perception of "Daddy being aware of a problem" and results in her saying "hand" (which was, by the way, pretty high up in her language ability at the time.) It seems to me that when the lowest level control circuit fails to bring the perception into coincidence with the reference of no pain, some kind of signal of persistent error must be input into the next higher level, which has a standing reference perception of "no persistent error in circuits below". This produces an error signal that sends new reference signals back down the hierarchy, bringing more control circuits to bear on the task, and the process repeats at higher and higher and wider and wider levels until the persistent error signal (now at multiple levels) is extinguished. This suggests that the perceptual signal that goes up the hierarchy will carry with it a perception of persistent error in a control circuit below.

Alternatively, there could be a standing reference perception of "no pain" at every level in the hierarchy such that the perception of pain coming up from below is enough to trigger the higher level error signals without any perception of persistent error signals below. But if all upper error signals depended on specific reference perceptions at each higher level corresponding to ALL possible perceptions coming up the hierarchy, the system would be unwieldy. It would be much more efficient MY way. Another example suggests that this doesn't cover it.

BA: When I was in High School, I had a friend, Jean, whose father had a Model A Ford. Her father used to let her drive us to school in that Model A. One day, we were coming down a hill heading towards some cars stopped at a light at the bottom of the hill. Jean stepped on the brakes to bring us to a stop and the brakes wouldn't hold. At the last moment she swerved to the right, up over the curb and onto the embankment. So here is my PCT analysis of that incident.

Jean sees the stopped cars and sends a reference perception for reduced speed down the hierarchy, ultimately reaching the brake foot. Brake foot control circuit, having a perception of a certain speed and now a reference perception of deceleration, gets on the pedal. The brake fails and the error persists in spite of attempts to control the perception at that level. A perception of loss of control, or persistent error, goes up to the next level where it triggers an error signal. Brakes get pumped and the error persists, and a perception of same goes up some more. Ultimately fairly high level circuits get pulled in, calculate risks and trajectories, plan escape routes, and make the maneuver. It seems unlikely that those higher level control circuits would have standing reference perceptions relating to brake functions. So it seems that what must be triggering the higher control functions is a perception of persistent error at a lower level.

BN: The video is terrific--Darth Vader in the Zendo! Whack! Whack! On the
23rd gall bladder point. What, me? Addicted? Who? I'm probably too attached
to figuring this stuff out to become enlightened. Oh well.

BA: Hahahaha! I'm so glad you watched the whole thing. I really enjoyed it.

Blake

···

[Bruce Nevin wrote on 10/27/2015 7:47 PM] BN: A couple of suggestions that may seem like quibbles. First, we don't

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Blake Ashley <Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov> wrote:

[Blake Ashley (10/27/2015 at 8:37 Arizona time)]

>>> Bruce Nevin <bnhpct@gmail.com> 10/16/2015 4:15 PM >>>

BN: The perception of having or being a durable, separate self I take to
be a
perception on the Systems Concept level, as the perceptual hierarchy is
presently understood. The objective evidence for this perception is that it
is defended when disturbed. Subjective evidence is the fact of awareness.
The *fact *of awareness is a perception, or at least some kind of construct
in memory. Awareness itself is something other than either a perception or
a memory. Can one be aware of awareness? That is near to a conundrum at the
heart of many meditation exercises.

BA: Agreed

BN: Introspection, memory, and observation suggest to me that disturbance
to a
self-perception or self-image perception evokes emotion, probably always,
whereas disturbance to many other kinds of perceptions does not. There is
no particular emotion evoked by disturbances in the demos of LCS III,
unless difficulty controlling e.g. a cursor position is a disturbance to
some higher-level perception, such as a judgment of one's performance or
competence. B:CP and subsequent discussions in this community identify
emotion with perceptions of bodily states.

BA: I think this is critical. One formulation of the fixated sense of
self suggests that it is a "tangle" of emotional body sensations and
thinking processes (visual and verbal) and that bringing mindful awareness
to that tangle causes it to separate into its components revealing the
fixated self it to be an emergent phenomenon.

The different responses of the organism to error signals seems to be
important. This is indicated by the fact that mindfulness techniques seem
to be training those responses by deliberately invoking error signals and
then thwarting the actions that would control the perception that is
causing the error signal. For example, sitting perfectly still and
greeting the error signal called restlessness with deliberate refusal to
control the perception that would eliminate that error signal (by moving)
and instead cultivating an attitude of "acceptance" of the perception that
is generating the error.

BN:
In the brain, the amygdala seems to have an important role using these
bodily states (emotions) to
categorize perceptions that are associated in memory with what researchers
call "emotional stress", that is, experiences in which an important
controlled perception is disturbed, generally (but not always?) due to
internal or interpersonal conflict. This categorization by association in
memory is done by associating experiences and bodily states (emotions)
together, so that either can evoke an imagined experience of the other.

BA: Another part of mindfulness "lore" suggests that we accumulate
emotional reactivity. And I believe some psychological research suggest
that emotionally we "get good at what we practice". Such that people
develop unskillful emotional responses to environmental disturbances -
shooting people for cutting you off in traffic, for example. Mindfulness
appears to release this emotional reactivity so that practitioners over
time notice that emotional responses to disturbance become more appropriate
to the severity of the disturbance. This suggests a learned toning down of
some aspects of some control circuits.

BN:
I suspect that the perception of a separated self consists of no more than
the mechanisms of defensiveness and reactiveness surrounding it.

BA: I agree with this if by "it" you include emotional body sensations,
thinking processes, and a plethora of concepts relating to identity, such
as judgments of self and others, opinions, affiliation to various groups
(nation, political party, etc.)

BN: Quieting this runaway feedback is the basis of equanimity arising out
of
mindfulness meditation practices. Bodily sensations and associated
perceptions are accessible as such more immediately. Experience is more
transparently evident without an encrustation of imagined perceptions.

BA: An increase in sensory clarity is one of the three mindfulness skills
developed with the practice.

BN:
There is some interesting evidence that emotion facilitates or is
associated with reorganization, but the relation is unclear to me and can
be interpreted in a variety of chicken-and-egg ways. (There are some very
clear examples in vol. 4 of the *Collected Writings* of Milton H.
Erickson.) An ordinary PCT hypothesis is that reorganization is triggered
by disturbance to intrinsic variables. I surmise that disturbance to
self-perception is a threat to physical integrity (as though it were a
disturbance to intrinsic variables) to the extent that survival depends
upon mutual aid and alliances with peers.

BA:
Certain kinds of zen practice seem to be all about generating physical
pain, mental confusion, sleepiness, fear, etc. continuously until the
system is thrown into reorganization mode. When the reorganizing finally
hits on deep equanimity as a means of correcting the massive overload of
error signals, it yields a satori experience. I suggest watching this
entertaining two-part you tube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjzEeSSL4o0

[_Erling_Jorgensen]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2015.10.20 11:00 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (10/16/2015 10:30:52 PM)

Hi Bruce,

I am not sure the notion of imagination is being used accurately in your descriptions below, particularly your last sentence: “In the latter case, It is only an imagined perceptual construct.”

Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com 10/16/2015 10:29 PM >>>

BN: In brief: Because of controlling perceptions that are associated in memory with fearful (or pleasant) situations, one imagines that the present situation is frightening (or enjoyable). In a similar way because of resisting disturbances to a self-image perception one imagines that there is such a thing as a persisting, separate self to be defended. In the former case, imagination augments or conceals or distorts perceptual input from the environment and from the body. In the latter case, It is only an imagined perceptual construct.

EJ: Constructed is not the same as imagined. A “self-image perception” is a genuine Systems Concept level construction that many people have. They do not only imagine they have it, they control for it and defend it against disturbances, the same as any other perception. You described the state of affairs eloquently in your earlier post:

(Attachment IMAGE20.jpg is missing)

···

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
BN: The perception of having or being a durable, separate self I take to be a perception on the Systems Concept level, as the perceptual hierarchy is presently understood. The objective evidence for this perception is that it is defended when disturbed. Subjective evidence is the fact of awareness. The fact of awareness is a perception, or at least some kind of construct in memory. Awareness itself is something other than either a perception or a memory. Can one be aware of awareness? That is near to a conundrum at the heart of many meditation exercises.

EJ: If we detect disturbance-resistance, then I think that is a sign of Control-mode, not Imagination-mode. To ‘control’ it in imagination means there is no need for defending; just think it and it is so.

EJ: This is separate from the question of whether it is useful to have the particular Systems Concept of “being a durable, separate self.” Certainly, Buddhist thought makes the case that such a systems concept can be treated as an illusion, because there are better systems concepts to live by. I think this is an invitation, from a more superordinate systems concept, to set a zero reference for that (former) systems concept of having a self that needs to be defended. In this sense, imagination may be a way to try that zero reference standard on for size: ‘What would it be like to not defend that precious Self, and indeed to notice that the separability of Self may be an illusion?’ This would be an example of bringing imagination to bear upon an already constructed perception of self-image. I believe it is an up-a-level invitation.

EJ: So I am certainly intrigued by what you (and others) are saying about imagination and about awareness more broadly. But I don’t believe imagination does the original construction of that (possibly faulty) notion of self-image.

All the best,

Erling

[<img src="cid:AOSZDIOAUXFH.537b60bf.jpg" border="0">
](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.riverbendcmhc.org&d=BQMFAg&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=HzQ5lsYxRvxzM2bf7g7XiKifaHpZXC6grVLlKc9r9EU&s=OreyzXA3nlCidvve_G79AYrooxZnUlfjPPhZoLm6ixg&e=)
  NOTICE: This e-mail communication (including any attachments) is CONFIDENTIAL and the materials contained herein are PRIVILEGED and intended only for disclosure to or use by the person(s) listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient(s), nor a person responsible for the delivery of this communication to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by using the "reply" feature or by calling me at the number listed above, and then immediately delete this message and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.

[bnhpct]

Yes, when we control perceptions in imagination the difference is whether the loop is closed through the environment. In effect, you are asking: how could an imagined perception be subject to disturbance? The answer is that the disturbance is imagined too. A case of mistaken identity. Happens all the time. Those occasions when it’s not the lowest-level input that constitutes the disturbance (she just walked out with that guy squeezing his arm), it’s what we make of it (oh–it’s her brother).

To see an example of an imagined perception based on sensory input from the environment, see

• http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~rosenblu/VSMcGurk.html

This illustration of the same phenomenon involves a lesser difference.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

The higher a perception is in the hierarchy, the greater the proportion of contributions to its input function likely to be derived from memory and controlled in imagination rather than coming from the environment. A self perception is in the proposed top level.

Most of the perceptions at the Systems Concepts level are collectively controlled; maybe the self-perception is as well. These perceptions are as they are because we control lower level perceptions in a way that satisfies their input requirements and their reference values. If the input requirements or reference values change in one individual in the collective control network that person’s behavior (control of perceptions at lower levels) is a disturbance to other individuals in that network which they resist, etc. in the ongoing process of collective control. A nation or a clan is an entirely imagined perception that sets references at lower levels. That’s why they are so difficult to define. You have to ‘be there’, so to speak. Control of Systems Concepts that are not collectively controlled is called being delusional.

Getting PCT established is a problem of collective control. We know that ‘they’ are delusional. They know that they are able to control lots of perceptions that matter to them perfectly happily.

(Attachment IMAGE21.jpg is missing)

···

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Erling Jorgensen EJorgensen@riverbendcmhc.org wrote:

[From Erling Jorgensen (2015.10.20 11:00 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (10/16/2015 10:30:52 PM)

Hi Bruce,

I am not sure the notion of imagination is being used accurately in your descriptions below, particularly your last sentence: “In the latter case, It is only an imagined perceptual construct.”

Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com 10/16/2015 10:29 PM >>>

BN: In brief: Because of controlling perceptions that are associated in memory with fearful (or pleasant) situations, one imagines that the present situation is frightening (or enjoyable). In a similar way because of resisting disturbances to a self-image perception one imagines that there is such a thing as a persisting, separate self to be defended. In the former case, imagination augments or conceals or distorts perceptual input from the environment and from the body. In the latter case, It is only an imagined perceptual construct.

EJ: Constructed is not the same as imagined. A “self-image perception” is a genuine Systems Concept level construction that many people have. They do not only imagine they have it, they control for it and defend it against disturbances, the same as any other perception. You described the state of affairs eloquently in your earlier post:

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
BN: The perception of having or being a durable, separate self I take to be a perception on the Systems Concept level, as the perceptual hierarchy is presently understood. The objective evidence for this perception is that it is defended when disturbed. Subjective evidence is the fact of awareness. The fact of awareness is a perception, or at least some kind of construct in memory. Awareness itself is something other than either a perception or a memory. Can one be aware of awareness? That is near to a conundrum at the heart of many meditation exercises.

EJ: If we detect disturbance-resistance, then I think that is a sign of Control-mode, not Imagination-mode. To ‘control’ it in imagination means there is no need for defending; just think it and it is so.

EJ: This is separate from the question of whether it is useful to have the particular Systems Concept of “being a durable, separate self.” Certainly, Buddhist thought makes the case that such a systems concept can be treated as an illusion, because there are better systems concepts to live by. I think this is an invitation, from a more superordinate systems concept, to set a zero reference for that (former) systems concept of having a self that needs to be defended. In this sense, imagination may be a way to try that zero reference standard on for size: ‘What would it be like to not defend that precious Self, and indeed to notice that the separability of Self may be an illusion?’ This would be an example of bringing imagination to bear upon an already constructed perception of self-image. I believe it is an up-a-level invitation.

EJ: So I am certainly intrigued by what you (and others) are saying about imagination and about awareness more broadly. But I don’t believe imagination does the original construction of that (possibly faulty) notion of self-image.

All the best,

Erling

[
](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.riverbendcmhc.org&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=AWMoi-kkareNWKz8-vW87m7heI3jAjfBUtEgh4U_TSg&s=l8hb06Ru23pzk1Fs-dcHj5itY8wBdaxmPjId6ieB40E&e=)
  NOTICE: This e-mail communication (including any attachments) is CONFIDENTIAL and the materials contained herein are PRIVILEGED and intended only for disclosure to or use by the person(s) listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient(s), nor a person responsible for the delivery of this communication to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by using the "reply" feature or by calling me at the number listed above, and then immediately delete this message and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.

[bnhpct]

EJ: Buddhist thought makes the case that such a systems concept can be treated as an illusion, because there are better systems concepts to live by. I think this is an invitation, from a more superordinate systems concept, to set a zero reference for that (former) systems concept of having a self that needs to be defended. In this sense, imagination may be a way to try that zero reference standard on for size: ‘What would it be like to not defend that precious Self, and indeed to notice that the separability of Self may be an illusion?’ This would be an example of bringing imagination to bear upon an already constructed perception of self-image. I believe it is an up-a-level invitation.

BN: It’s not up a level, it’s orthogonal to the hierarchy. It’s a shift from controlling Systems Concepts to simply being aware as the hierarchy controls.

(Attachment IMAGE22.jpg is missing)

···

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Erling Jorgensen EJorgensen@riverbendcmhc.org wrote:

[From Erling Jorgensen (2015.10.20 11:00 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (10/16/2015 10:30:52 PM)

Hi Bruce,

I am not sure the notion of imagination is being used accurately in your descriptions below, particularly your last sentence: “In the latter case, It is only an imagined perceptual construct.”

Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com 10/16/2015 10:29 PM >>>

BN: In brief: Because of controlling perceptions that are associated in memory with fearful (or pleasant) situations, one imagines that the present situation is frightening (or enjoyable). In a similar way because of resisting disturbances to a self-image perception one imagines that there is such a thing as a persisting, separate self to be defended. In the former case, imagination augments or conceals or distorts perceptual input from the environment and from the body. In the latter case, It is only an imagined perceptual construct.

EJ: Constructed is not the same as imagined. A “self-image perception” is a genuine Systems Concept level construction that many people have. They do not only imagine they have it, they control for it and defend it against disturbances, the same as any other perception. You described the state of affairs eloquently in your earlier post:

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
BN: The perception of having or being a durable, separate self I take to be a perception on the Systems Concept level, as the perceptual hierarchy is presently understood. The objective evidence for this perception is that it is defended when disturbed. Subjective evidence is the fact of awareness. The fact of awareness is a perception, or at least some kind of construct in memory. Awareness itself is something other than either a perception or a memory. Can one be aware of awareness? That is near to a conundrum at the heart of many meditation exercises.

EJ: If we detect disturbance-resistance, then I think that is a sign of Control-mode, not Imagination-mode. To ‘control’ it in imagination means there is no need for defending; just think it and it is so.

EJ: This is separate from the question of whether it is useful to have the particular Systems Concept of “being a durable, separate self.” Certainly, Buddhist thought makes the case that such a systems concept can be treated as an illusion, because there are better systems concepts to live by. I think this is an invitation, from a more superordinate systems concept, to set a zero reference for that (former) systems concept of having a self that needs to be defended. In this sense, imagination may be a way to try that zero reference standard on for size: ‘What would it be like to not defend that precious Self, and indeed to notice that the separability of Self may be an illusion?’ This would be an example of bringing imagination to bear upon an already constructed perception of self-image. I believe it is an up-a-level invitation.

EJ: So I am certainly intrigued by what you (and others) are saying about imagination and about awareness more broadly. But I don’t believe imagination does the original construction of that (possibly faulty) notion of self-image.

All the best,

Erling

[
](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.riverbendcmhc.org&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=CxDKP1C5KpfeBWFNpvl1opFfTIJQw1VTY1lgZIA8sUA&s=JJOKpfjjtFCu98Do0eQLW-2Rq4UQheWFGwyLUe1n0ZA&e=)
  NOTICE: This e-mail communication (including any attachments) is CONFIDENTIAL and the materials contained herein are PRIVILEGED and intended only for disclosure to or use by the person(s) listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient(s), nor a person responsible for the delivery of this communication to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by using the "reply" feature or by calling me at the number listed above, and then immediately delete this message and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.