[From Bjorn Simonsen (2006.08.23,09:45 EUST)]
From Rick Marken (2006.08.22.0900)
I am wondering whether you think any perceptual
variable can be considered objective in the sense
that it corresponds to something in our models of
external reality. I’m just
interested in hearing a
discussion of the relationship between perception
and reality in PCT. I understand that many (most)
perceptions, such as the taste of a milk shake, are
constructions based on sensed aspects of external
reality. There is no milk shake taste out there
(according to our models); just the molecules that
elicit various taste sensations, which are combined to
produce the taste “milk shake”.
I am not so sure about the not existing milk shake taste out there. I would rather say
that the perception of the milk shake taste is an inner representation of
something out there. There is something out there but in accordance with PCT I
will never perceive the something directly. In accordance with PCT nobody will
ever perceive the something directly. Therefore I think it is a wrong question
to ask what the something out there really is, either it is a milk shake taste
or a stone falling towards the earth, or a colour or “the right to drive on a
green light” in a road intersection or the right to bear arms.
In your earlier discussion you implied that some
perceptions (like
“rights”, assuming they are perceptions)
are less objective than others
because these perceptions don’t correspond to
anything in our models of
external reality. I was just asking whether some
perceptions are more
objective than others. For example, color could be
considered an
objective perception because changes in colour
correspond to changes in
what we model as changes in wavelength of light.
But we also know that
a colour perception that corresponds to a single
wavelength can also
result from the appropriate combination of 2 or 3
wavelengths. So it
seems to me that colour is no more objective, in
terms of correspondence
between perception and model of external reality,
than the perception
of a principle like “the right to bear
arms”. What do you think?
Here you propose that something is more objective than
something else because of the quality of the “something”. I don’t think it is
the quality (out there) that makes something more objective than something
else, I think it is our imagination, our inner representation of the external
state out there that prescribe what we call objective quality. The more
experiments we do with the “something” out there, the more different
relationship we are able to implement in our inner imagination. It is the
quality of our inner representation, our imagination that prescribes the
objectivity of something out there. And that objectivity is subjective.
What I have written in the paragraph above is in force
for me if I am the only person in the world.
If I meet another person we are able to agree about
the quality of something out there. Then the imagination in the two of us is
more or less equal and we are able to control the same perception.
Our imaginations are seldom absolutely equal. I have performed
more experiments with the “something” out there than the other person. My
imagination has more degrees of freedom than the imagination in the other
person and I am sure that the “something” out there has more degrees of freedom
than my imagination. I will experience that when I do new experiments later.
PCT explains the way one person has an inner
representation of the external state. The reference signal, the perceptual
signal and the error are parts of the PCT model and they are elements in the
brain of one person.
We can’t without more ado say that PCT explains the
way two people have an inner representation of the external state. In my PCT
imagination there is no common brain in the two people (or in the organization
of many people). But an agreement is a
redeemer. An agreement helps two different brains to control a common
perception. And I am curious if Kent McClelland in his coming book will use the
concept “agreement”.
When the one person (above) goes to school he learns
about colour, wavelengths, gravity and more. And if all the children learn their
lesson, more than two people agree about more and more about the external state
out there. The agreement influence the way two or more people interact.
I think you should go to the UN and teach them PCT,
Rick. Maybe they will understand that agreement is the only way more than one
person is able to control the same perception.
An agreement doesn’t last forever. Now and then some
people (scientists) do new experiments and they get new qualities of their
imagination. All agreements must be taken care of always.
Some external states can’t be sensed in the same way
as we sense a stone fall toward the earth. They are words representing an inner
imagination in one person. The words can be sensed. I think that what we call “rights”
are external states described with words. I don’t think the imaginations
describing “rights” are less objective than imaginations describing a stone
falling towards the earth.
bjorn