(Gavin Ritz

2010.08.07.21.36NZT)

[From Bill

Powers (2010.08.07.0145 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2010.08.07.13.17NZT –

BP: Here is a link to Dag’s web page where the Byte articles can be

found and downloaded. The diagrams I mention are in the third installment.

[http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/intro_papers/bill_pct.html

](http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/intro_papers/bill_pct.html)Thank you.

No, that’s a diagram of the cerebellum, a lower-order structure at the base of

the brain that appears to handle dynamic stability in motor behavior. The basal

ganglia are just beneath the cerebrum and above the thalamus. I presented a

proposed model of the cerebellum at the 1994 CSG meeting in Wales,

but nobody got very interested in it – the math was probably a bit too arcane.

I would like to see this please, I think I

can handle the math, I am have an engineering degree and two post graduate

degrees so I’m not short on math, I further have a library on mathematics

with over 50 math’s books including Topoi logic.

It was published in the

Proceedings of that meeting by the University of Aberystwyth, but

I don’t seem to have any records of it left.

I would like a copy if you find it.

I had a great diagram of the columns but can’t find it again. My hard disk is a

disorganized mess.

Pity

When you asked about “the perceptual input function,” I trust you

were speaking generically, not about one single perceptual input function.

I was hoping that we wouldn’t be going here

again. I have spent hundreds of hours on your theory; I expect none of these

types of comments.

I’m not a service organization, I’m just me. Get over it. Or manage your

language more carefully.

What a poor response, if you feel communication

is waste of time on your subject then don’t bother to respond. I suggest

that it’s your language that is poor.

There are probably

thousands of perceptual input functions, each producing just one perceptual

signal representing one kind of perception.

Maybe millions.

The Byte article shows that these input functions are probably

all close together at each level, so there can be interactions among them, but

they can still be represented as separate functions with, perhaps, redundant

computations in them to take care of the interactions. See Figures 3.11 and

3.12 in B:CP.

Not very helpful diagrams. I’m looking for the actual

brain structure and functions as it relates to PCT models.

So is everybody, but the information doesn’t exist. Come back in 200 years.

This is another poor response. What on earth

is your problem? This is your theory, you have created a higher level model, if

this is your response to your higher level model, I assume you have no idea if

it exists or not.

The more

I look at PCT at the higher levels the more convinced that using lower levels

type modeling is probably not going to suffice. PCT shows actually a good relationship

with science at the input function level at the lowest level. (where the rubber

meets the road so to speak)

The higher functions are all based strictly on subjective experience.

So it has no basis in scientific thought

then. That’s all I wanted to hear, now you are being honest. Because you

have to go to subjective qualitative thinking there is no other choice. Above

level 2 it runs into this problem, even sensations are a quality.

I do logical

thinking and run other sorts of mental programs, so that’s a level in the

model.

It’s only logical to the degree you

are moving around variables. We all have to accept this my models also fall

short on the math because there is no math at this level. Maybe Topoi logic.

Thank you for being honest.

How it is implemented in

the brain I don’t know.

Thank you, that’s honest.

The higher levels, of

course, all have to act by using the lower levels.

Yes but they have a very different nature

higher levels, they cannot be mathematically determined.

All

modalities in PCT line up with science, pressure, temp, light, chemical etc. So

good math there but as soon as we go up levels it runs into the same brick wall

as science. Human organism requisitely live in qualitative notions. Hence my

previous comments you cannot create a Picasso out of 5 stones. Okay so the stones have a sensation (roughness),

a smell, a shape (config) a temperature, color (electromagnetic) but like all

models lack the qualitative aspect. The stone may well represent something else

un-capturable, shaman’s powers, beauty, secret weapon, talisman, exchange

system etc etc.

If such things exist. Nothing is “uncapturable” after you know how to

capture it.

Yes qualitatively but not quantitatively. That’s’

what Action Research is, the late Philip Runkel had plenty to say about this. I scoured his books in great detail

too. I capture a great deal of information and all sort of criteria the link to

the human mind. No maths there.

Science

is absolutely connected to math’s they are embraced totally and

completely. And even our counting system exhibits spiral causation (circular

causation is just one aspect of spiral causation) aspects totally not yet

understood.

Spiral causation isn’t a bad notion, since every time around, the world is a

little different.

There are whole theories in spiral causation.

This is where my interest lies. My models are based on this concept. That’s

why I think they can be incorporated in PCT, but you need to have an open mind

for this. And I know of another theory that’s well tested that can be incorporated

into PCT also because of this.

But in PCT everything in

the loop is happening at the same time, and the beginning of the

loop, wherever you start, is also its end.

That’s only because you are looking

at it that way. A closed loop is just one special case of a spiral. In the

brain it’s totally open and looping so it’s spiral causation. If it

was not there could be no concept of innovation.

Don’t put mathematics down just because you don’t understand it.

I think I understand math enough

considering I was trained as a professional engineer at a top university. My original

profession is a geotechnical engineer the most arcane discipline of civil. Math’s

plays a central role as you would know being an engineer yourself.

Actually I have a very special interest in

maths. Particularly in number theory. And number theory has a very special relationship

with the human brain. Primes are actually placed in a logarithmic spiral (Riemann discovered this). But that’s

another thread.

I’m not fooled by the limits of

mathematics.

As you

said before an almost impossible task, I couldn’t agree more with you.

I don’t worry about “impossible.” Everything is

impossible until you figure out how to do it.

You the one who said impossible. I just

agreed. As I said above spiral causation is the road to innovation both

constructive and destructive.

It just takes time

(maybe more than I have, but someone else will do the rest).

Maybe.

Regards

Gavin