The silence of the reference signals

[Human_Factors_Lab]

[From Rick Marken (940521.1540)]

On the "personal observations about consciousness" front: I have been
wondering about just how "perceptible" are our wants (reference
signals). I was jogged into thinking about this while reading over Perry
Good's lovely books about child rearing. In there she describes wants
(reference signals) in a way that was once (and perhaps still is) popular
in the Reality Therapy world -- "pictures in your head". The idea is
that we are always trying to get our picture of reality to match the
picture in our head -- a fair description of a control system driving a
perceptual signal into a match with the reference signal. The
problem with this desciption of wants is that it gives the impression
that wants can be objects of awareness as can the perceptual signals
being controlled. I am beginning to think that this is not the case at
all; all we are aware of (I think) is the state of perceptual signals
which, if they are controlled variables, are nearly always very close to
their reference state. The only time we have anything like an awareness
of wants is when "things seem wrong"; perceptual signals are not in
their wanted states. But even when this happens I don't think we
have a good idea of what's wrong at the time that things are wrong --
that is, we are not aware of what perceptual signal(s) is not under
control. This has happened to me; I have felt something was wrong
and been unable to put my finger on what it was until things got better
(fortuitously or as a result of unconscious control processes).

I think wants (reference signals) lurk in the background of our being;
subjectively we are unaware of the contribution of our own wants to
our own behavior; we make the world be as we want -- or we experience
things as "wrong". I don't think that imagination really helps out
that much. Imagination (theoretically) is a replay of reference
signals into the path of the perceptual signals controlled by the
reference. But when we do this I don't think we are aware of our
imaginings as variations in wanted (actually, possibly wanted) states of
perceptual signals. We are just "behaving" in imagination --
controlling imaginations in the same way as we control perceptions in
normal control mode.

I'm not sure that we can become aware of wants; I think the best
we can hope for is to become aware of the perceptual variable being
controlled -- make that variable an object of experience, and then notice
that certain states of that variable seem "wrong"; the state that seems
right at the moment is the reference state.

The idea that wants cannot become objects of awareness explains (to me)
why it is so difficult for people to understand that perception itself is
not intrinsically good or bad; why people are appalled when it becomes
clear than another person does not experience the same perception as
"obviously" bad or good. The reference signals that give value to an
otherwise flat perceptual panorama sit silently in the background of
our consciousness - experienced only in terms of other perceptions,
the emotions. Even error signals are not objects of awareness themselves;
again, I think we know them only in terms of other perceptions -- emotions.

It is the silence of our reference signals -- which we really know about
only because of control theory -- that makes it so difficult for us to
tell that we are the one's who determine what is right and what is
wrong -- only we ourselves, in the form of their own invisible,
silent -- and unrelenting -- reference signals.

Best

Rick

[Tom_BOURBON3]

Tom Bourbon [940523.1039}

[From Rick Marken (940521.1540)]

An interesting post, Rick.

On the "personal observations about consciousness" front: I have been
wondering about just how "perceptible" are our wants (reference
signals). I was jogged into thinking about this while reading over Perry
Good's lovely books about child rearing. In there she describes wants
(reference signals) in a way that was once (and perhaps still is) popular
in the Reality Therapy world -- "pictures in your head". The idea is
that we are always trying to get our picture of reality to match the
picture in our head -- a fair description of a control system driving a
perceptual signal into a match with the reference signal. The
problem with this desciption of wants is that it gives the impression
that wants can be objects of awareness as can the perceptual signals
being controlled. I am beginning to think that this is not the case at
all; all we are aware of (I think) is the state of perceptual signals
which, if they are controlled variables, are nearly always very close to
their reference state. The only time we have anything like an awareness
of wants is when "things seem wrong"; perceptual signals are not in
their wanted states. But even when this happens I don't think we
have a good idea of what's wrong at the time that things are wrong --
that is, we are not aware of what perceptual signal(s) is not under
control. This has happened to me; I have felt something was wrong
and been unable to put my finger on what it was until things got better
(fortuitously or as a result of unconscious control processes).

There was a lot more interesting material in your post, but this introductory
passage leaves me feeling that something is wrong. Remember that I am not a
visual imager; I simply do not "see" thoughts, memories, imaginations and
the like. Until my senior year as a psychology major, I thought people were
speaking metaphorically when they said they "saw images" of their thoughts,
or that their thoughts actually *are* images. Then I realized they meant it
literally.

Often, during pre-csgl discussions of control theory, cst people spoke
of making their perceptions match the images in their heads. When I pursued
that idea, most of the discussants said they meant their remarks literally,
with various degrees of fidelity of the reference images. Not too long ago,
on csg-l, there were similar discussions about the imagery associated with
reference perceptions. Once again, most of the discussants claimed they
experienced literal images. Now you say you doubt that there are literally
images of reference perceptions.

What can a non-imager make of all of this? My first thought, which was
also the thought I had many years ago, is that all of this talk about
imagery is like talking about ghosts and poltergeists.

Lost in the void of my ever-silent reference signals,

Tom
Tom Bourbon
Department of Neurosurgry
University of Texas Medical School-Houston Phone: 713-792-5760
6431 Fannin, Suite 7.138 Fax: 713-794-5084
Houston, TX 77030 USA tbourbon@heart.med.uth.tmc.edu

[Marken_Richard_S1]

[From Rick Marken (940523.1040)]

Tom Bourbon (940523.1039) -- Note promptness of my reply!

Now you say you doubt that there are literally images of reference
perceptions.

What can a non-imager make of all of this?

Apparently a great deal more than all the imagers on the net since you are
the only one to comment on it.

First, let me emphasize that what I questioned was not whether there are
"images of reference perceptions" but whether reference signals could become
"objects of awareness". Awareness is an aspect of consciousness; I think of
it as a property of the reorganizing system -- the "meta" control system that
has the hierarchy of control systems (rather than the perceived external
environment) as the object of its controlling. Awareness (I think) is
perception of perception; I, for example, am perceiving many things at the
moment but I can become aware of any of those perceptions (like the
perception of the pressure of the keys under my fingers as I type) by making
the perception itself an object awareness.

What I was questioning was whether reference signals can themselves (qua
reference signals) become objects of awareness. I don't believe that they can
-- based on subjective experience; I don't seem to be able to become aware of
my wants as I am able to become aware of perceptions (that may themselves be
controlled and, thus, in wanted states). This has nothing to do with whether
or not one can "image". As I said at the time we discussed it, I think
everyone can image; so called "non-imagers" just don't seem to include
sensation, configuration and other "lower level" variables in their imagery.
You, for example, must be able to image in SOME way because you can think
(and pretty darn well, too, perhaps because you are not burdened by all those
lower level details, like I am; remember Bill's account of Luria's mnemonist
who had trouble doing math word problems because the images he formed were so
real that they took on a life of their own, independent of the abstract math).

I liek the current PCT model of imagination that says we think by playing
reference signals back through the normal perceptual pathways. We can
certainly become aware of these imagined perceptions -- but again, it is
perceptions (not the reference signals themselves) that are becoming objects
of awareness. Even when we become aware of reference signals indirectly by
becomming aware of the perceptions resulting from the replay of references,
we are not actually becomming aware of the reference signals that determine
our behavior (what perception we control and at what level) right now -- at
the moment. What we learn about reference signals from our imaginings is the
perceptual dimensions on which our wants can vary. So, for example, I can
imagine my hand being made into a fist -- this doesn't mean that I am aware
of a want to make a fist. All it means (I think) is that I CAN want to make a
fist -- the fist is one state of a perception that can vary from "open hand"
to "fist". I might, indeed, want to make a fist in the context of real
controlling -- but, I submit, the want (reference signal) that produces this
perception does not become the object of awareness when it is in effect,
though the state of the perception while this want is being carried out CAN
become the object of perception and, if everything about that perception
seems OK -- it's a good fist -- you can INFER that you are perceiving your
hand in a fist because you wanted to "make a fist" (there is a reference for
that perception).

I think the "silence of the reference signals" is what makes therapy so
difficult. If it were possible to become aware of wants as readily as we
become aware of perceptions we would have little need for therapists; I think
it's the job of the therapist to help people make inferences about what they
themselves want based on the state of their own perceptions. This is
basically what Freud said, now that I think of it. Reference signals (I
think) are the equivalent of Freud's unconscious needs-- we just don't divide
them up into id, ego and superego types -- though it would be easy to do it.
I think Freud's intuition was right -- that by becoming aware of these
references we solve internal conflicts.

Best

Rick