Martin, Warren…
MT : As to Warren’s “that means that you can control perception without controlling the variable aspect of the environment,”. You have to be precise about what you mean by “the environment”. Even if you consider “the environment” to be whatever lies outside the skin, the environment that influences the sensors does change when you change gaze direction, or when you cup a hand around the ear to listen better, or when you touch a surface to see whether it is hot and smooth or cold and rough. I would say that in seeking the embedded structure in the random dot stereogram you are controlling a variable aspect of the environment (available to the sensory system).
HB : I think that it doesn’t matter whether you look with one or both eyes in whatever environment is perceived. “Control of perception” works the same way. There is no “aspect of the environment” that is controlled". Wtih what ? "Control of behavior or Telekinesis ? Did I understand something wrong ?
Martin, you gave an example of “rock” :
MT : …a rock, you may start by trying to pick it up, but it is too heavy and doesn’t [“want to”] move. You are not interested in what the rock “wants” unless you are an animist. You are controlling to perceive it moving to the place you want it. So you try pushing or rolling it, but it still doesn’t [“want to”] move. Maybe you control in imagination a perception of the rock moving because you put a strong stiff object behind and under it and pressed down on the other end. You’ve never done that before, but controlling in imagination your perception of the rock works, and in practice it might work. You see a big crowbar and it matches your imagined perception of a useful tool, so you do what you had done when you controlled the rock position in imagination, and the rock moves, after which you are able to roll it to where you want it.
HB : Its easy to control perception of rock, you could litf it, you could also throw it in imagination to the MOON, you can be a superman, but it was only perception that was controlled. Nothing happend in environment to the rock (q.i.) or anything else.
So I hope it’s clear that when perception is controlled nothing adequately in environment is controlled. That’s also the point of Ruperts statement :
RY : I still have in mind the example of RDSs (random dot sterograms), where, it seems to me, no aspects of the environment vary while the perception is being controlled, so how can it be that “aspects of the environment” are being controlled?
WM : ….but doesn’t logically mean that perception is being controlled every time that a variable aspect of the environment is being controlled.
HB : Mantra in PCT is that we can control only what we perceive. It’s not way arround. That we can “Control perception” only when we “controlled” in environment. It’s nonsense. We can’t perceive control from environment and than we control perception or that with perception we explain what we controlled in environment. Causality in control loop is always “one way”. It’s time-line. We perceive, control perception , act on environment, perceive…. On the basis of “Control of perception” we act and change environment. Nothing is “controlled” in environment.
Think a little Warren. Stay in real World stop imagining with opened eyes. Rick turned your head arround with his discourses in imagination. His statements are pure fantasy. And you are also not in contact to what is really happening. You are profesor on University. What kind of example are you giving to your students with “no real” contact to reality.
WM : It seems that the phenomenon is control of a variable in the environment, and the explanation is the control of the perceived aspects of the environment (PCT).
HB : Warren get yourself in order. Where are you now with your thoughts ? In the center of Galaxy ? Read again all Bills literature. Stop reading Rick and listening to him.
HB : Control is not happening in external environment. That is RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory).
RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loo
CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
HB : People control their internal state also with behavior through external environment.
Control in PCT is about controlling in organism. The phenomenon is control in organisms, that’s how they survive. Behavior is just “support” and effects in environment support control in organism.
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Ask your friend Tim Carey :
TC (2014) :
According to PCT, control is a process of acting to bring a perceived aspect of the world into a match with a mental specification for the state of that perception
HB : Talk to him. And you wrote that Kent is particulary helpfull to you. What don’t you ask him for advice ? Why are you asking Rick who is obviously enlarging your confussion.
Boris
···
From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 2:29 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: What is controlled in viewing a Random Dot Sterogram
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.28.07.55]
On 2018/05/23 7:45 AM, Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
“RY: I still have in mind the example of RDSs (random dot sterograms), where, it seems to me, no aspects of the environment vary while the perception is being controlled, so how can it be that “aspects of the environment” are being controlled?”
Hi Rupert, so that means that you can control perception without controlling the variable aspect of the environment, but doesn’t logically mean that perception is being controlled every time that a variable aspect of the environment is being controlled. It seems that the phenomenon is control of a variable in the environment, and the explanation is the control of the perceived aspects of the environment (PCT). But in the RDS, isn’t that a different phenomenon to explain? Through a more sophisticated component of PCT (e.g. the imaginal connection?)
Warren
Let’s not get too wound up in deep theory here before we look at what is being done to and by the sensory system. We have two eyes, but even if we close one, what we clearly see depends on where we look. If we see a flicker out of the corner of the eye, we must control our gaze direction so we can look to see whether the flicker signifies a disturbance to some environmental variable we are controlling. Changing gaze direction is something we, and pretty well any visually competent animal does almost constantly as the action output of a low-level control loop on a par with changing the joint angle of an elbow. Reference values for gaze direction come from other levels of control. In the case of the flicker we want to see whether the value of some perception we control has been moved outside its tolerance zone.
There’s really not much that is different when we think of two eyes and the RDS. As in the case of the flicker, we want to see what is there – the “hidden picture” or structure in the bipartite pattern. To see what is there, we change the gaze direction of one eye relative to that of the other. If we look in the appropriate direction, we see what caused the flicker, or, in the 3-D display, what structure is created by consistent correlations between the patterns seen by the two eyes.
When we have found it, we don’t necessarily control the perception of whatever did cause the flicker, but even if we do, any action output to control it happens after we have controlled our gaze direction so that we can perceive it clearly. When we have controlled our two gaze directions so that we can perceive the structure created by the correlations between the two patterns seen by the two eyes, we have no way of controlling that perception, though we may use it as a component of some perception we do control.
As to Warren’s “that means that you can control perception without controlling the variable aspect of the environment,” You have to be precise about what you mean by “the environment”. Even if you consider “the environment” to be whatever lies outside the skin, the environment that influences the sensors does change when you change gaze direction, or when you cup a hand around the ear to listen better, or when you touch a surface to see whether it is hot and smooth or cold and rough. I would say that in seeking the embedded structure in the random dot stereogram you are controlling a variable aspect of the environment (available to the sensory system).
HB :
Martin