[From Erling Jorgensen (2006.11.11 1000 EST)]
Fred Nickols (2006.11.10.0732 EST)] --
Bjorn Simonsen (2006.11.10.13:25 EUST)]
> From Rick Marken (2006.11.08.2100)
Hi Fred,
I changed the subject line from statistics again because I would
like to focus on the groups sub-thread, in particular, some
comments by Bjorn.
AT a CSG conference back in the early 1990s, I remember Robert
Clark asking the question, not "what is physics?", but "where
is physics?" And of course, the answer is, you point to your
head. I think a similar question could be useful here --
"Where is a group?"
>> What is a group?
> A collection of individuals.
I think an analogy can be drawn between a "group" perception
and the perceptual construction of an "event" (in an HPCT sense).
An event is a sequence of transitions, with a somewhat arbitrary
beginning and end. If I recall, in B:CP Bill used the example
of an opera's singer trill in an aria, or even the event of the
aria itself.
To perceive an event, decide where you want to perceive the
beginning and the end -- the "punctuation" in a Batesonian
sense -- and call the stuff in the middle the "event" of interest
to you. (I realize that such a decision process isn't the best
model for how the perceptual input functions for events are
actually constructed.)
As an aside, I think this formulation for understanding events
works even for the collections of movements that behaviorists
love to lump together as behavioral "events" -- e.g., bar-
pressing, or whatever.
Returning to the analogy with a group perception... A "group"
is some collection of perceptions of "individuals" -- (and how
much do you lump together to perceive an "individual"?) -- that
is lumped together according to some border or boundary-condition.
The boundary-condition can be impicit or explicit, but it
specifies what is outside and what is inside the "group". I
would even say that groups are _defined_ by these perimeter
membranes, keeping in mind that the membranes are themselves
perceptually constructed. It is also worthwhile to note that
such boundary-conditions can be quite arbitrary indeed, as any
conversation with a conspiracy theorist will demonstrate.
Back to the above descriptor of a group as "a collection of
individuals". I think it is important to attend to who is doing
the collecting.
Is is I as perceiver and/or imaginer? Is there perceptual
evidence that the individuals themselves are self-selecting to
be in that collection? I would look for such things as self
designations, party labels, stories held in common, and contrasts
with those who are not "like us". Or is someone else --
pundits? taxonomers? CEO's? -- seeming to do the collecting?
If I saw some number of people (say 15-20) standing around in
rough proximity to one another out in public, I might well
call them a "group."
Again, notice _who_ is doing the grouping.
However, their relationship to one another, for all I know
at the time, might be nothing more than the fact they're
in proximity to one another. There might be nothing else
connecting them.
Or, there may be no one else connecting them in their perceptions.
If I saw that same number of people standing around in
someone's backyard, in rough proximity to one another -
and to a barbecue grill - ...
Note the additional boundary-conditions here. Not only
"proximity," but "someone's backyard," and around a "grill."
...I might say that a group of friends or neighbors has
gathered for a barbecue.
This raises what may be the boundary-conditions of the
individuals involved. That is, whether _they_ see themselves
as a group, of "friends" or Neighbors", as you say.
We are not able to experience events from a group
because they don’t exist.
I don't think I exactly agree with this formulation of Bjorn's.
If we have constructed a perception, however arbitrary, of
a "group", that is what we expthat perception.
I do agree, however, with where Bjorn is locating the "group" --
...there is one thing; the word “group�? from in here. There is
no connection between the group out there and the word “group�?
in here, because the group out there doesn’t exist. The
group out there is an Illusion.
I would rephrase this slightly -- consistent, I think, with
Bjorn's intent -- as: "the group out there only exists as
perceptions in here."
I would add, however, that "in here" may include the inside
perceptions of some of those individuals out there. And so,
some of them may be acting _as if_ the "group" is an environmental
perceptual variable to be controlled. For that purpose, they
might use perceptions such as "belongingness" or "better-than-
them", etc.
Do its individual members exist or are they illusions too?
Rather than the word "illusions" -- for either groups or
individuals -- I would prefer the word "constructions." I think
the implications are similar with either word.
Zen Buddhism would say, "Yes, individuals are illusions." PCT
would say, "That's right, they are constructions."
I can see how folks who observe the interactions among the
members of a group would give those interactions names and,
in so doing, they are in fact naming their own observations.
Is that what you're getting at?
That matches my take on what I think Bjorn is getting at. It
also keeps the focus on who is doing the naming.
I would agree that a group of people has no collective
intelligence, that is, a group of people does not form and
thereby create some new sentient being apart from its
individual members.
I agree. However, when the individual members are constructing
and perceiving themselves in terms of groups, they can of
course seek to control those perceptions in collective ways.
I think this may be how "groups" may sometimes act as _virtual_
control systems. I think it would be modeled in two ways. One
would be as the emergent collective behavior of agents. The
other would be the amplification of gain that might occur in
the environmental feedback function of numerous autonomous
control systems.
I, too, wait for Kent McClelland to publish and clear all this
up for us...
All the best,
Erling
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.
<<<<RCMH>>>>
