The discussion a while ago about perceptual qualities reminds me of what is known as the problem of âqualiaâ? in philosophy and psychology. Qualia are the subjective aspects of experience, the tastes, sights, sounds, feels etc. unique to particular sensations. Some view the problem of qualia as the essential problem of consciousness (Searle Berkeley).The problem of qualia iis sometimes viewed as determining how the central nervous system (CNS) produces them. But the real problem maybe determining why they exist at all and why they are different. The answer I think may have implications for the issues in PCT.
We have to think I believe that the information in the CNS is essentially all of the same type- line labeled signals. That is, the message is defined by the fibers that are active along with perhaps some other related variables like the amount and timing of the activity in the individual neural fibers. This because the nervous system is essentially hard wired at both ends sensors and effectors. But if this is the case it becomes very hard to imagine how variations in these few parameters could somehow account for the varieties of experience. The experience of red and the taste of lemonade are essentially the same thing inside our heads- if qualia are a CNS phenomenon. Considerations like these force us to consider non CNS explanations for the qualitative aspects of experience.
But we are not simply whatâs going on in our CNS, we are also whatâs going on in the transduction systems that produce the signals for the CNS. Further : Sensation is not something we have, sensation is something we are, as âin the state of having …â? And- sensation has two aspects, the qualitative and the essentially quantitative- information. Sensation has two components- transduction processes and the information they produce. So what then are the perceptions of PCT? Qualia are had and not known, experienced but not known, whatâs known is the information they produce. This sensory information is the aspect of experience that can control behavior, part of but not the whole sensation. Are perceptions sensations or are they sensations as realized by the CNS? I suggest that the perceptions of PCT are really packets of information and that PCT is more accurately called information control theory since it is this internal information that is determining behavior.
Realizing that the controlling influences on behavior are information in what ever form it takes line labeling or whatever- may be a clariffying step in the development of the theory.
Your thoughts?
Bob Eichler
TECHNICAL SERVICES
Vancouver WA
···
From: Richard Marken
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 2:06 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The taste of lemonade (was Re: Winter school …)
[From Rick Marken (2016.09.28.1405)]
Martin Taylor (2016.09.27.23.14) –
RM: In PCT, the taste of lemonade is a perceptual variable constructed as a vector combination of "...intensity signals generated by sugar and acid (together with some oil smells)". Powers goes on: "However unitary and real this vector [perception] seems, there is no physical entity corresponding to it".
MT: I suppose that really depends on what you mean by a “physical entity”. Since all we ever have is perception, and no controllable perception is dependent on the input from only one sensor – one retinal cone, one auditory hair cell, one taste bud or one anything else – every perception that we control has the same issue; it is constructed, whether the perception is of the location of a cursor relative to a target or the politics of a political party.
RM: Exactly. And PCT just adds that, in theory, the raw materials for this construction are the sensory effects of environmental variables; and the construction is done by neural networks in in the nervous system that we call perceptual input functions.
MT: Every perception is as real as our ability to control it or a perception to which it contributes. Either you say that all such variables on which you can do a Test for the Controlled Variable have an existence in the outer world or you say that none of them do.
RM: I don’t think Bill’s point was that there is no outer would basis of perception. It was that there is not necessarily an entity in the outer world (per the models of physics and chemistry) that corresponds to that perception. The taste of lemonade does depend on outer world variables – concentrations of various molecules – but the particular concentrations of molecules we enjoy as lemonade is not a particular entity in the real world. It’s like humidity; we can perceive humidity and measure it’s outer world basis (in terms of temperature and water vapor concentration); but humidity doesn’t exist as a entity out there; just temperature (molecular motion) and water vapor (concentration of H2O).
MT: There’s no in-between in which some controllable perceptions correspond to something “out there” and some do not. Even what Bill called “intensities” are constructed, since they depend on contrasts between the outputs of some set of sensory receptors as compared to what they recently were, and as compared to what their neighbours’ outputs are and were. Are those perceived intensities “out there”?
RM: I would say that they depend on variables that are out there; but even intensity perceptions are functions of these variables.
RM: This is the constructivist view of perception and it is at the heart of an understanding of behavior in terms of control of perception. It is certainly at the heart of the hierarchical model of control, where the perceptions at each level of the hierarchy are *constructed* from lower level perceptions that are themselves constructed from still lower level perceptions.
MT: Yes, exactly. That is what I am saying. It is true of every perception other than the nerve impulses from individual sensors – a retinal rod or cone, a hair cell, or a taste bud. Moreover, I say that for a perception to correspond to something “out there” it must either itself be controllable or it must be part of the input to a controllable perception.
RM: I don’t see why a perception must be controllable in order for it to correspond to something out there (by “correspond to” I presume you mean “function of”; a perception corresponds only to the function of external variables computed by the input function). I think there are a lot of things we can perceive – that are functions of external variables – that we can’t (or don’t) control. What is surely true is that in order to be controllable a perception must be a function of variables outside the control system – variables that the system itself can affect.
MT: Parenthetically, I think it worth mentioning once again that I developed in 1973 a three-level control model to explain the difference between the tactile perceptions induced by active touch (haptic perception, resulting in an object "out there" being perceived) versus passive touch, when the perception is that a body part is being touched. (Taylor, Lederman and Gibson "The tactile perception of texture", Chapter 12 in Carterette and Friedman (Eds) "Handbool of Perception III: Biology of Perceptual Systems, Academic Press 1973)
RM: I’d love to see a reprint, if you have one. Otherwise I think I can get it myself.
MT: My argument for the “out-thereness” of the taste of lemonade is precisely that you CAN do the TCV on it,
RM: OK, great.
MT: But it really doesn’t matter what Bill said He was a wonderful guide and critic, but I don’t think he ever claimed to be always correct.
RM: What Bill said that matters most is his theory and the evidence he mustered to support it. Indeed, he never claimed to be correct; he developed PCT as a proposal regarding how behavior works and he wanted (indeed., implored) people to subject the theory to rigorous test so that the theory could be corrected if necessary. What I object to is all the suggested “improvements” to Bill’s theory that are made without any scientific evidence that suggests that such improvements are necessary. Powers, like Newton, developed the theory; now what we need are tests of the theory. That’s the way to carry on Bill’s legacy; not by revising his theory because it does’t suit your taste but by putting it to the test.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers