Taylors diagram

[From Dag Forssell (920629-1)

Martin Taylor 920626 17:45

I, too, find Martin's diagram very helpful. I think I have understood
for some time the complexities of "Behavior of perception," with control
circuits in a suggested 11 levels and rather massive parallel. The
insight that is at the same time simple and new is the view of the world
outside the organism.

As I interpret the diagram, Martin is simply placing a mirror at the
interface. Instead of thinking of the physical world outside as one
complex of parallel happenings, I now realize that since "It is ALL
perception," we must by necessity think of it as perceived by us with
precisely the same levels of perception as we think of and discuss as
inside the control system.

I think it is difficult to convey the significance of the rubber band
experiment. Now it is easier.

With all 11 levels laid out both above (as always) and below (which is
new) a mirroring line of symmetry (the border between the control system
and the outside world (as perceived), we can portray the perception of
knot and the dot as simple configurations in the outside world,
controlled from the simple configuration want in the inside world.

This spans level +4 (above) past 0(interface) to -4 (below), or 9 levels
in a 23 level diagram. (Perhaps better relationships: +6 0 -6)

Even the simple rubber band involves millions of sensors (on the retina,
joint angles) and hundreds of effectors (muscle control) to develop and
control the perception of a relationship between two single points in
space.

Now you can visually (in the diagram) extrapolate and discuss how you
control more complex matters like principles and even systems concepts
involving even more sensors and effectors.

It becomes a straightforward extension involving, ultimately, all 23
levels, with a massive number of sensors and effectors at level 0.

Here we have separated perception and control and lost the sense of
interconnection of the control processes up the levels, which is the
essence of "behavior of perception," but this may be a better place to
start. The simultaneous behavior of perception is a concept and process
that is hard to grasp. Perhaps it may just as well wait a little.

It just occurs to me that we take Martins 23 level chart and fold it on
the mirror line, then interconnect the control systems across so we
control all the perceptions up and down. We are back to the diagram as
we know it, but with an expanded understanding of it.

Best Dag

[Martin Taylor 920629 1515]
(Dag Forssell 920629-1)

It just occurs to me that we take Martins 23 level chart and fold it on
the mirror line, then interconnect the control systems across so we
control all the perceptions up and down. We are back to the diagram as
we know it, but with an expanded understanding of it.

This is true, but I'd rather not do that. One of the points of making the
diagram is to show a relation between a "Boss Reality" and a controlled
percept. Now if that Boss Reality exists, it is accessible to another
control system (e.g. an experimenter). The other control system can
focus on (perceive) the same complex environmental variable (CEV) and perhaps
attempt to control its perception of the CEV, disturbing the first control
system's perception of it. We can diagram the interaction his way, taking
the top half of this diagram as representing the whole of my earlier one, and
the bottom half its mirror image:

                ECS
  Person 1 / \
              /| |\
         ====^=^===V=V====
              \| |/
               \ /
   World CEV
               / \
              /| |\
        =====V=V===^=^======
              \| |/
  Person 2 \ /
                ECS

If you fold the original diagram about the mirror line where "the rubber meets
to road", you lose this view. Much more crucial, you lose the view of somewhat
off-focus disturbance, which was the core of the discussion about VOT.

In the second diagram (below), Person 2 is attempting to disturb what he/she
thinks Person 1 is controlling for, but actually disturbs only one of Person 1's
intermediate percepts. Person 1 might not be controlling that percept with
high gain, but might control the focus CEV by compensating for error in the
disturbed intermediate variable through a shift in the reference for another
intermediate variable. This would be detected by Person 2 as variability
or lack of control in the disturbed intermediate variable, and Person 2
would miss the fact that the focus CEV was under tight high-gain control.

                ECS
  Person 1 / \
               > ECS
              /| |\
         ====^=^===V=V====
              \| \ |
               > CEV\
               \ / | \
   World CEV /| |\
                    / | | \
       ============^==^=V==V======
                    \ | | /
    Person 2 \| |/
                      \ /
                      ECS

I would have preferred to draw this diagram with the Person 2 picture aligned
at right-angles to the Person 1 picture, and if I do it with a graphics system,
that is what I will do. The right-angles presentation shows more clearly the
missed aim of Person 2. But it is hard to do in ASCII.

Martin