Where do references come from (was Re: What's in a name?)

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my

postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46
and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and
Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and
story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is
extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what
I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further,
but this sketch that might be useful.

431.jpg

···

On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman
wrote:

        MT

:

      The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is

good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

        HB

:

        I

agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding
out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it
in determining how … purposefulness
and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living
organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?<

Â

    It is conceptually easy

to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the
requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their
genetically determined reference levels, provided the
environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is
never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine
range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level”
controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways
interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our
complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a
control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels
is anyone’s guess.

    Jan 18

    We started this thread

with your I think some of our
misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about
language . I think you are correct that your question
reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine
landscape…

    ... I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy

existing and being continually restructured within a single
organism. …

    My "landscape" is a structure organized under the rules for

reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all
the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are
close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if
not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the
perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and
sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new
connections and new control units, the elimination of
connections or of control units, and the variation of the
parameter values of existing connections. New control units will
be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their
perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing
control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their
outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or
rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes
new control units will be “above” existing top-level units,
sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps
leaving those below them as newly “top”.

    Here's a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is

an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal
connections have been dropped, and some new control systems
built.

    I believe, but can't prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will

automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies
within the environment that influence the organism’s precision
of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with
different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for
example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so
they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My
suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any
aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels
represent complex social perceptions, such as the
“self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

    Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an

unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless
something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a
more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

    ================

    [Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don't all mean the

same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example,
in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that
the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to
the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the
left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the
right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system
has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line
means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its
local structure.]

    If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new

“top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference
input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic.
As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent
reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does
have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is
derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy
at a higher level.

    ---------

    One question, related to the plausibility of the strict

hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit
that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed
its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level
higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs.
Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the
hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the
whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a
strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This
seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of
course, the simulation would require the construction of an
environment sufficiently
complex to justify the development of a multi-level control
structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

    Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to

that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output
connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an
otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that
level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual
side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as
simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs
had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference
input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied
reference values – creating an internal loop within the
hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing
negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people
persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

    Martin

[Phil 6/26 11:04 am]

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance?

This is where references comes from.

Watch this movie if you have time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6n-fIHGia8

431.jpg

···

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

  On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman

wrote:

        MT

:

      The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is

good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

        HB

:

        I

agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding
out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it
in determining how … purposefulness
and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living
organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Â

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my

postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46
and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and
Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and
story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is
extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what
I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further,
but this sketch that might be useful.

===========

Jan 14




        It is conceptually easy

to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the
requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their
genetically determined reference levels, provided the
environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is
never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine
range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level”
controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways
interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our
complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a
control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels
is anyone’s guess.

    Jan 18



        We started this thread

with your I think some of our
misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about
language . I think you are correct that your question
reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine
landscape…

    ... I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy

existing and being continually restructured within a single
organism. …

    My "landscape" is a structure organized under the rules for

reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all
the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are
close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if
not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the
perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and
sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new
connections and new control units, the elimination of
connections or of control units, and the variation of the
parameter values of existing connections. New control units will
be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their
perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing
control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their
outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or
rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes
new control units will be “above” existing top-level units,
sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps
leaving those below them as newly “top”.

    Here's a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is

an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal
connections have been dropped, and some new control systems
built.

    I believe, but can't prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will

automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies
within the environment that influence the organism’s precision
of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with
different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for
example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so
they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My
suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any
aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels
represent complex social perceptions, such as the
“self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

    Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an

unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless
something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a
more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

    ================



    [Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don't all mean the

same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example,
in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that
the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to
the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the
left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the
right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system
has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line
means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its
local structure.]

    If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new

“top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference
input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic.
As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent
reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does
have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is
derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy
at a higher level.

    ---------

    One question, related to the plausibility of the strict

hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit
that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed
its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level
higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs.
Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the
hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the
whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a
strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This
seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of
course, the simulation would require the construction of an
environment sufficiently
complex to justify the development of a multi-level control
structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

    Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to

that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output
connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an
otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that
level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual
side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as
simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs
had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference
input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied
reference values – creating an internal loop within the
hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing
negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people
persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

    Martin

10:00 -Â water memory

431.jpg

···

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Phil 6/26 11:04 am]

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance?

This is where references comes from.

Watch this movie if you have time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6n-fIHGia8

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

  On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman

wrote:

        MT

:

      The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is

good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

        HB

:

        I

agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding
out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it
in determining how … purposefulness
and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living
organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Â

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my

postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46
and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and
Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and
story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is
extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what
I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further,
but this sketch that might be useful.

===========

Jan 14




        It is conceptually easy

to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the
requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their
genetically determined reference levels, provided the
environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is
never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine
range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level”
controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways
interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our
complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a
control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels
is anyone’s guess.

    Jan 18



        We started this thread

with your I think some of our
misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about
language . I think you are correct that your question
reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine
landscape…

    ... I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy

existing and being continually restructured within a single
organism. …

    My "landscape" is a structure organized under the rules for

reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all
the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are
close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if
not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the
perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and
sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new
connections and new control units, the elimination of
connections or of control units, and the variation of the
parameter values of existing connections. New control units will
be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their
perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing
control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their
outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or
rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes
new control units will be “above” existing top-level units,
sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps
leaving those below them as newly “top”.

    Here's a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is

an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal
connections have been dropped, and some new control systems
built.

    I believe, but can't prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will

automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies
within the environment that influence the organism’s precision
of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with
different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for
example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so
they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My
suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any
aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels
represent complex social perceptions, such as the
“self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

    Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an

unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless
something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a
more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

    ================



    [Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don't all mean the

same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example,
in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that
the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to
the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the
left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the
right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system
has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line
means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its
local structure.]

    If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new

“top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference
input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic.
As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent
reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does
have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is
derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy
at a higher level.

    ---------

    One question, related to the plausibility of the strict

hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit
that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed
its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level
higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs.
Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the
hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the
whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a
strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This
seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of
course, the simulation would require the construction of an
environment sufficiently
complex to justify the development of a multi-level control
structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

    Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to

that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output
connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an
otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that
level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual
side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as
simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs
had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference
input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied
reference values – creating an internal loop within the
hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing
negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people
persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

    Martin

Hi Philip,

If I understood right, your tip about Scumann is scientific explanation. So you do afterall respect science ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from.

HB :

I’m interested how Scumann resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth ?

Best,

Boris

431.jpg

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

10:00 - water memory

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Phil 6/26 11:04 am]

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance?

This is where references comes from.

Watch this movie if you have time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6n-fIHGia8

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further, but this sketch that might be useful.

===========
Jan 14

It is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their genetically determined reference levels, provided the environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

Jan 18
We started this thread with your I think some of our misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about language. I think you are correct that your question reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine landscape…

… I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy existing and being continually restructured within a single organism. …

My “landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new connections and new control units, the elimination of connections or of control units, and the variation of the parameter values of existing connections. New control units will be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving those below them as newly “top”.

Here’s a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal connections have been dropped, and some new control systems built.
Reorganization growth

I believe, but can’t prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies within the environment that influence the organism’s precision of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels represent complex social perceptions, such as the “self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

================

[Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don’t all mean the same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example, in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its local structure.]

If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new “top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.


One question, related to the plausibility of the strict hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs. Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of course, the simulation would require the construction of an environment sufficiently complex to justify the development of a multi-level control structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

Martin

What does it matter if I respect science?

431.jpg

···

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

If I understood right, your tip about Scumann is scientific explanation. So you do afterall respect science ?

Â

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from.

Â

HB :

I’m interested how Scumann resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth ?

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

10:00 -Â water memory

Â

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Phil 6/26 11:04 am]

Â

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Â

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance?

Â

This is where references comes from.

Â

Watch this movie if you have time:

Â

RESONANCE ~ Beings Of Frequency Documentary Film

Â

Â

Â

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Â

Â

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further, but this sketch that might be useful.

===========
Jan 14

It is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their genetically determined reference levels, provided the environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

Jan 18
We started this thread with your I think some of our misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about language. I think you are correct that your question reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine landscape…

… I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy existing and being continually restructured within a single organism. …

My “landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new connections and new control units, the elimination of connections or of control units, and the variation of the parameter values of existing connections. New control units will be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving those below them as newly “top”.

Here’s a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal connections have been dropped, and some new control systems built.
Reorganization growth

I believe, but can’t prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies within the environment that influence the organism’s precision of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels represent complex social perceptions, such as the “self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

================

[Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don’t all mean the same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example, in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its local structure.]

If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new “top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.


One question, related to the plausibility of the strict hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs. Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of course, the simulation would require the construction of an environment sufficiently complex to justify the development of a multi-level control structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

Martin

Â

Â

Hi Philip,

I put my text under yours.

431.jpg

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:19 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

PJY :

What does it matter if I respect science?

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

Let me repeat some sentences you used to express your attitude to science :

  1.   I'm sick of these new age scientists trying to come up with stupid adjectival juxtapositions to describe something they hope exists.
    
  2.   In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic game called science,
    
  3.   If you haven't figured it out yet, scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream chasers running after a science which has gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of pure math.
    

I asked you if you are spitting on science, but you didn’t answer.

And now you are using science to prove your judgement about where references come from. Where is your phenomenology explanation ?

Did I get everything right ?

Best Boris

P.S. I’m still interested how Schumann Resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth or how the references come from Schumann Resonance ?

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

If I understood right, your tip about Scumann is scientific explanation. So you do afterall respect science ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from.

HB :

I’m interested how Scumann resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth ?

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

10:00 - water memory

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Phil 6/26 11:04 am]

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance?

This is where references comes from.

Watch this movie if you have time:

RESONANCE ~ Beings Of Frequency Documentary Film

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further, but this sketch that might be useful.

===========
Jan 14

It is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their genetically determined reference levels, provided the environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

Jan 18
We started this thread with your I think some of our misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about language. I think you are correct that your question reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine landscape…

… I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy existing and being continually restructured within a single organism. …

My “landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new connections and new control units, the elimination of connections or of control units, and the variation of the parameter values of existing connections. New control units will be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving those below them as newly “top”.

Here’s a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal connections have been dropped, and some new control systems built.
Reorganization growth

I believe, but can’t prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies within the environment that influence the organism’s precision of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels represent complex social perceptions, such as the “self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

================

[Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don’t all mean the same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example, in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its local structure.]

If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new “top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.


One question, related to the plausibility of the strict hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs. Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of course, the simulation would require the construction of an environment sufficiently complex to justify the development of a multi-level control structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

Martin

Martin,

MT :

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further, but this sketch that might be useful.

HB :

Yes I remember something from ECACS. Nice times…

MT :

It is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their genetically determined reference levels, provided the environment is sufficiently complex.

HB :

I agree. But I don’t remember that Bill ever physically or chemically or biologically connected »genetically determined reference levels« with »intrinsic variables« ?

MT :

…Thhe resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently modular.

HB :

I don’t get this one ?

MT :

Whether in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

HB :

I think it don’t.But i’m not sure I understand perfectly what is being said ?

MT :

… I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy existing and being continually restructured within a single organism. …

HB :

Which single organism is meant here ? Some simple virus or bacteria or more complex organism like tree or whale ?

MT :

My “landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are close to their genetically determined reference levels,

HB :

I still don’t understand how and when do we know that intrinsic variables are near »genetically determined reference levels« ? And interesting. Here you mentioned one process in organism that is working all the time (with »no exit« or stop)

MT :

…faast if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and sustained or growing.

HB :

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand this one ?

MT :

Reorganization involves the making of new connections and new control units, the elimination of connections or of control units, and the variation of the parameter values of existing connections.

HB :

Can you show more clearly or specifically how reorganization makes new connections and new control units in any kind of organism ? Maybe you can use some extra diagram ?

MT :

New control units will be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving those below them as newly “top”.

HB :

Can you explain to me, how this is happening in nervous system ? One example ?

MT :

I believe, but can’t prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies within the environment that influence the organism’s precision of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels represent complex social perceptions, such as the “self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

HB :

Martin, your efforts are worth of admiring. But as you put it, there is no evidence to support your structure and implementation of new control units. But maybe the main principal can be relevant. I can’t tell you yet, bacause I don’t understand clearly your sketch. But I’m sure about one thing : »Top-bottom hieracrhy« will not solve some problems with explaining how intrinsic error is sensed and »eliminated«.

MT :
Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

HB:

I’m inclined to beleive that more then one hierarchy developed through billions of years in »more complicated perceptual control systems«. But this doesn’t solve the problem why hierarchies were formed during evolution.

MT :

If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new “top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.

HB :

My opinion is that this idea is not close to the »truth«. As I see it, it implies that new »top level« is formed, because it was predicted somehwere in space and time that it will give the »right reference« to the lower level control units. I can’t think of how could genetics »know« which level have to be put on top, so to function properly in the hierachy and make control better. Do I understand right what you are saying is, that every »top level« in evolution developed without any connection to genetic source or »intrinsic reference signal« ?

I think it would be easier if you wouldn’t try to »squeeze« reality into PCT theory but all the way arround. Try to »squeeze« PCT theory into reality. I’m trying to say that it would be better to upgrade PCT theory to match the »reality«.

MT :

One question, related to the plausibility of the strict hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs. Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of course, the simulation would require the construction of an environment sufficiently complex to justify the development of a multi-level control structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

HB :

Looks much better, If of course I did understand right what you are saying.

MT :

Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

HB :

What would you say if your idea that »internal loops within the hierarchy« are possible and are part of normal functioning of nervous system ? Not pathological.

Boris

P.S. I’m just interested whether you would agree with the idea that all perceptual signals are compared as generic Bill’s diagram shows ?

431.jpg

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Taylor
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 7:44 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further, but this sketch that might be useful.

===========
Jan 14

It is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their genetically determined reference levels, provided the environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

Jan 18
We started this thread with your I think some of our misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about language. I think you are correct that your question reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine landscape…

… I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy existing and being continually restructured within a single organism. …

My “landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new connections and new control units, the elimination of connections or of control units, and the variation of the parameter values of existing connections. New control units will be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving those below them as newly “top”.

Here’s a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal connections have been dropped, and some new control systems built.
Reorganization growth

================

[Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don’t all mean the same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example, in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its local structure.]

If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new “top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.


One question, related to the plausibility of the strict hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs. Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of course, the simulation would require the construction of an environment sufficiently complex to justify the development of a multi-level control structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

Martin

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.27.10.57]

I don't think it was necessary for him to do that, though it would

support his HPCT proposals if he did, and if he found that plausible
mechanisms could be supported by evidence from those disciplines. I
haven’t read everything he ever wrote, so I don’t know whether he
did. Remember, he was making a functional proposal, which he supported
by physiological evidence where he had any, but in many places he
said that there could be lots of different physiological ways the
functions might be implemented. It doesn’t matter whether, for
example, a perceptual function is represented by one computational
network that produces a single value on a single fibre, or a
multitude of perceptual functions at the same level are implemented
in a distributed way. For example, perceptions representing
different spatial events (edges, bright and dark spots …) could
each have an individual fibre carrying the signal for a particular
location, or the series could be distributed as a spatial Fourier
transform or other representation in which each fibre carried a
little information about many points in the space. It wouldn’t
matter, and it wouldn’t affect the functional description of the
hierarchic control system.
Anyway, in all of what I said on ECACS in this particular thread, as
well as in what I say now, I have followed my principle of “Let’s
assume HPCT to be correct, see how far we can go with it, and see if
we can find out where it has to break”, rather than “Can we find
anywhere that his proposals can’t be proved by evidence from other
disciplines”. Your critiques often are ones I would make if I chose
to follow the second approach. Did you get the picture I tried to include in my message? If not,
check the ECACS message, at
.
It shows how controlled perceptions are modular at high levels but
interact at lower levels. As an everyday example, to control the
temperature of a room, one uses one’s body motions to change the
thermostat setting. To type this message, I also use body motions. I
can’t do both at once because of the low-level interactions
involving body motions (in this case, conflict). But my control of
temperature is unrelated to my control of the perceptions involved
in typing the message, deciding what words to use, and so forth. The
two in this example are not top-level, but the principle is the
same. In the picture, the perceptions that were top-level at the
early stage are no longer top-level at the later stage, but their
modularity with respect to each other, and their low-level
interactions, remain unchanged.
I’m imagining some future super-super-computer simulating the
development of the control structure using Bill’s rules, and asking
whether it would wind up with the same set of levels of controlled
perception as Bill intuited from self-observation. It would be
fascinating if the simulation produced a 12-level hierarchic
structure, but who knows whether it would? It might well wind up
with something different each time the simulation was run.
Any living thing separated from its environment by something like a
skin or a cell membrane, so you can talk sensibly about an “inside”
and an “outside”. Cell, bacterium, tree, whale, human.
Nobody has specified “how” we (I assume you mean the internal
processes of the organism) “know” for any specific intrinsic
variable. I don’t know whether anyone has definitively described any
specific intrinsic variable. The functional presumption is that
intrinsic variables exist, that they have genetically determined
reference values, and that deviations of their actual values from
their reference values increase reorganization rates. And yes,
reorganization is assumed in HPCT to be ongoing throughout the
lifetime of an organism.
What about it do you not understand? I don’t know how else to say
it. The rate of reorganization depends on how well the intrinsic
variables match their reference values, and where in the hierarchy
the reorganization happens fastest is likely to be where control
isn’t good. Also maybe different intrinsic variables affect the
rates in different parts of the hierarchy. Bill took all this as
very ill-determined in the various e-mail interchanges we had about
it, apart from that the overall rate depended on the intrinsic
variable error and whether the intrinsic variable error was
increasing or decreasing…
No. Again we are talking about functional issues – what has to
happen, not the mechanism whereby it happens. However, my guesses
suggest to me that the probable mechanism physiologically is the
development and elimination of synaptic connections, possibly by
Hebbian and anti-Hebbian processes involving spike timings, though a
recent article in Science (9 May 2014, p626) about rat place memory
showed that the place is encoded separately both in spiking and in
the phase of non-spiking waves in the local electrical fields. For
testing the theory, how this happens would matter only if it were
possible to show that physiologically it could not happen.
You are asking questions at the level of atomic physics about
processes at the level of organic chemistry. It would be great to be
able to follow all the processes from the low-level detail to the
functional effect, but we can’t – or rather, I can’t. Maybe some
neurophysiologist might be able to do that now or in the future, but
I’m not one and nor was Bill. My very crude sketch of an answer to
this is that dendritic and axonal processes grow and shrink, making
and breaking synaptic connections and changing electrical influences
across neural “wires”. That means that novel structures must come
and go. The further presumption is that structures that get used are
likely to stick around. Structures that get used are likely to be
involved in perceptual control. Hence, new control units can appear
anywhere in the complex structure that is the HPCT proposal for how
control units relate to one another.
You can tear my sketch apart however you like, because it is totally
unsupported by evidence other than what I glean from skimming the
neurophysiological articles in Science and Nature. But it wouldn’t
affect the principle that the development of new control units is
part of reorganization in HPCT. Only if it proved that this is
impossible does the physiological level of analysis affect the
viability of the theory.
I would be happy to learn how you know this. However, Bill was very
complimentary about my description of how the “top-down structure”
helps maintain the intrinsic variables near their reference values,
at . If
you are sure it is wrong, it would be great to have a correction.
Agreed, and I say again that my approach is not to try to prove that
HPCT is correct in every detail, but to try to stress it by seeking
situations where it must break down. There are lots of alternate
possibilities for control structures that are not hierarchic, but
whether they are closer to the truth than HPCT can be determined
only by finding situations in which they fit data better or more
parsimoniously (using Occam’s razor as a test). If there exists any
observation that HPCT cannot accommodate, then some other structure
must be preferred. So far, I know of none.
I don’t think it implies this at all. What I think it implies is
that in the environment certain variables often change together in a
moderately consistent way, which implies (if you think
geometrically) that the variation is in a lower dimensionality space
than is implied by the number of changing variables. When this is
true, it is more effective to control within the low-dimensionality
space than to control each variable separately. To do this implies
the control of one or more perceptions that depend on several of
those variables.
Incidentally, I actually predicted how this could happen at a low
level using lateral inhibition based on spike timing in my 1973 S.
African Journal paper
.
The effect was verified about 40 years later.
Nobody suggested it might. What is on top must vary greatly across
organisms, as people mature in different social environments, and
just by chance. Why do you suppose it should?
What is a “top level in evolution”? All evolution does is to keep
around those things that exist in surviving organisms and can be
communicated to the next generation. If treating some chemical
concentration as a value to be kept fairly stable helps transmit the
genes that help this to happen, that concentration might well become
an “intrinsic variable”. But there’s no guarantee that it would.
If there is a point where _H_PCT doesn’t match reality as well as
some other proposal, then _H_Pct would have to be abandoned. My
approach, I repeat, is to try to find some such point. It’s perfectly legitimate to start with the observations and find
something that fits. That’s what most psychologists do, and what
Bill P did. Bill’s answer was different from other answers. Now I
try to break it. If you want to produce a competing answer, that’s wonderful, because
it would give us something that might fit observations better than
does _H_PCT (I don’t think you can disconfirm PCT without throwing
out the laws of thermodynamics). Everyone would be delighted if you
could produce evidence stronger than “I don’t believe”. Personally,
as I think you know, I have strong doubts that HPCT is literally
correct, but so far, I can’t break it or produce a competing
proposal that has as more breadth or fits observations better.
I would think that very likely, if my guess has any truth. The
pathology would appear only when the loop gain is too high and that
couldn’t happen if such loops were not used in normal functioning.
So if they explain the pathology, they must exist in the normal
case. HPCT doesn’t permit them. Is there any evidence they exist?
As we have often said before, Bill’s diagram refers ONLY to
controlled perceptions. At any moment, almost all of our perceptions
cannot be controlled. That’s fundamental because of the difference
between the speeds and variety of our output possibilities and the
speeds and variety of our sensory systems.
As we have often said before.
Martin

···

Martin,

Â

        MT

:

      I think a pointer toward a partial answer

might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory
dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub
and Grill->Theory->Language and
Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it
is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long
thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any
serious discussion would have to go much further, but this
sketch that might be useful.

Â

HB :

      Yes I remember something from ECACS. Nice

times…

Â

MT :

        It

is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic
organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables
be kept near their genetically determined reference levels,
provided the environment is sufficiently complex.

Â

        HB

:

        I

agree. But I don’t remember that Bill ever physically or
chemically or biologically connected »genetically determined
reference levels« with »intrinsic variables« ?

Â

        MT

:

        …The

resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different
peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need
the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their
input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently
modular.

Â

        HB

:

        I

don’t get this one ?

http://ecacs.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=192&post=1494#POST1494

Â

        MT

:

        Whether

in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic
development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s
intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

Â

        HB

:

        I

think it don’t.But i’m not sure I understand perfectly what
is being said ?

Â

        MT

:

        ...

I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy
existing and being continually restructured within a single
organism. …

        HB

:

        Which

single organism is meant here ? Some simple virus or
bacteria or more complex organism like tree or whale ?

Â

        MT

:

        My

“landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for
reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens
all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic
variables are close to their genetically determined
reference levels,

Â

        HB

:

        I

still don’t understand how and when do we know that
intrinsic variables are near »genetically determined
reference levels« ? And interesting. Here you mentioned one
process in organism that is working all the time (with »no
exit« or stop)

Â

        MT

:

        …fast

if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts
of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are
large and sustained or growing.

Â

        HB

:

        I'm

sorry, but I don’t understand this one ?

Â

        MT

:

        Reorganization

involves the making of new connections and new control
units, the elimination of connections or of control units,
and the variation of the parameter values of existing
connections.

Â

        HB

:

        Can

you show more clearly or specifically how reorganization
makes new connections and new control units in any kind of
organism ? Maybe you can use some extra diagram ?

Â

        MT

:

        New

control units will be connected normally, meaning that they
receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the
perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely,
from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference
inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors
such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control
units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes
existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving
those below them as newly “top”.

        HB

:

        Can

you explain to me, how this is happening in nervous system ?
One example ?

Â

        MT

:

        I

believe, but can’t prove, that levels in such a hierarchy
will automatically develop to mirror different kinds of
consistencies within the environment that influence the
organism’s precision of overall control. Different kinds of
organism live with different perceptual environments. The
other Great Apes, for example, live in a less complex social
structure than we do, so they would be expected to develop
flatter hierarchies. My suspicion is that (to the extent
that a hierarchy represents any aspect of our actual control
structure) the higher levels represent complex social
perceptions, such as the “self-image-as-seen-by-others”
complex we have discussed.

        HB

:

        Martin,

your efforts are worth of admiring. But as you put it, there
is no evidence to support your structure and implementation
of new control units. But maybe the main principal can be
relevant. I can’t tell you yet, bacause I don’t understand
clearly your sketch. But I’m sure about one thing :
»Top-bottom hieracrhy« will not solve some problems with
explaining how intrinsic error is sensed and »eliminated«.

http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Mutuality/intrinsic.html

Â

        MT

:
Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an
unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless
something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part
of a more complicated perceptual control system in most
animals.

HB:

        I'm

inclined to beleive that more then one hierarchy developed
through billions of years in »more complicated perceptual
control systems«. But this doesn’t solve the problem why
hierarchies were formed during evolution.

Â

        MT

:

        If

this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new
“top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference
input. Bill’s top-level units always have this
characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to
having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not
at the top level does have a reference input, and the value
supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of
connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.

        HB

:

        My

opinion is that this idea is not close to the »truth«. As I
see it, it implies that new »top level« is formed, because
it was predicted somehwere in space and time that it will
give the »right reference« to the lower level control units.

http://www.mmtaylor.net/Academic/SouthAfricanJ_OCR_edit.doc

        I can't think of how could genetics »know« which level have

to be put on top, so to function properly in the hierachy
and make control better.

        Do

I understand right what you are saying is, that every »top
level« in evolution developed without any connection to
genetic source or »intrinsic reference signal« ?

        I

think it would be easier if you wouldn’t try to »squeeze«
reality into PCT theory but all the way arround. Try to
»squeeze« PCT theory into reality. I’m trying to say that it
would be better to upgrade PCT theory to match the
»reality«.

Â

        MT

:

        Maybe

there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to
that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output
connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an
otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that
level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual
side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen
as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual
inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a
reference input from a unit at or below the level to which
it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop
within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with
self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies
in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such
as hand-washing?

Â

        HB

:

        What

would you say if your idea that »internal loops within the
hierarchy« are possible and are part of normal functioning
of nervous system ? Not pathological.

Â

Boris

        P.S.

I’m just interested whether you would agree with the idea
that all perceptual signals are compared as generic Bill’s
diagram shows ?

Â

Boris,

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you.  Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.Â

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life. Â

I don’t know what’s going to happen to man in the future, but I think that if you fast-forward the time, you’re not going to see a futuristic society.  You simply are not going to read in the paper " in the year 2025 , a scientist makes a breakthrough discovery which leads to bla bla bla and now there is peace on earth ".  Have you ever heard of a guy named Edward Leedskalnin? Back in the 30s or 40s he built Coral Castle… Yea, well let’s just say he didn’t tell anybody exactly how he did it, so I don’t know exactly how his technology worked. But he built it alone.  He did what billions of people claim to be impossible, and he did it alone. He is currently unrecognized for his scientific contributions. As far as I’m concerned, science can take a hike. Ed disproved the fundamental assumptions of physics by  predicting and  successfully making observations of celestial bodies which modern physics does not have the grounds to predict. He claimed his technology was based on the same fundamental concepts used to build ALL the megalithic structures on earth.Â

Now tell me this, Boris, do you think Ed used the  scientific method to build his machines?  Where would you see the logic of falsifiable hypothesis explicitly spelled out? It’s almost as if, in the same way as a perceptual control system just happens to automatically calculate inverse-kinetics without explicitly doing so, Ed automatically proved the most difficult problems of science could be solved by controlling a few perceptual variables. He did leave some hints, by the way. His technology is based on the intersection of geometry and prime numerology. And in the production of sound frequencies to generate forces by amplifying power. Â

Everything in the universe, matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the elements have been mapped to these geometries.  In fact, the exact same geometric structures have been observed at all ranges of the observable universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of galactic superclusters. This, at least, I applaud scientists for. It took the collaboration of many individuals to gather this information. But at the end of the day, it’s just observation (not prediction). Additionally, this information does not need to be known to build the technology that Ed built. He certainly did not know all this stuff. Gathering this information and then trying to integrate it into our current technology, without having already built the futurine technology, is not only like taking the long path to get from one point to another, but rather like curving around the target point, doing spirals around it, and then trying to double back and hit the point with an inverted spiral which doesn’t intersect any of the curves we took while circling the point 8 times in the first place.  It’s a joke. This is why I said that we are relying on accidentally discovered connections between geometry and physics. Whereas Ed Leedskalnin was doing it more on purpose. But we won’t get to where Ed got simply for the same reasons as inverse-kinematics won’t control an arm better than Bill’s model.Â

So not to burst anybody’s bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science in which everybody doesn’t know everything. Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human insect colony where everybody specializes  because they need to for the colony to survive. You want to call yourselves by your title, call yourselves “human” and look to see what humans have accomplished in the universe and chase only after the achievements of immortals. That’s what Ed did. Who was Ed? A genius? He was a simple stone setter by trade. Then a lumberjack. Then an amusement park host. But he was a geometer. Humans are geometers. We measure geometries and we control our measurements. In my opinion, at the end of the day, when everything is done and figured out, this is why PCT would have truly shone. By forcing us to understand that WE control our measurements, and not the other way around.Â

Â

431.jpg

···

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

I put my text under yours.

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:19 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

PJY :

What does it matter if I respect science?

Â

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

Â

Let me repeat some sentences you used to express your attitude to science :

1.      I’m sick of these new age scientists trying to come up with stupid adjectival juxtapositions to describe something they hope exists.

2.      In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic game called science,

3.      If you haven’t figured it out yet, scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream chasers running after a science which has gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of pure math.

Â

I asked you if you are spitting on science, but you didn’t answer.

And now you are using science to prove your judgement about where references come from. Where is your phenomenology explanation ?

Â

Did I get everything right ?

Â

Best Boris

Â

P.S. I’m still interested how Schumann Resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth or how the references come from Schumann Resonance ?

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

If I understood right, your tip about Scumann is scientific explanation. So you do afterall respect science ?

Â

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from.

Â

HB :

I’m interested how Scumann resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth ?

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

10:00 -Â water memory

Â

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Phil 6/26 11:04 am]

Â

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Â

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance?

Â

This is where references comes from.

Â

Watch this movie if you have time:

Â

RESONANCE ~ Beings Of Frequency Documentary Film

Â

Â

Â

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Â

Â

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further, but this sketch that might be useful.

===========
Jan 14

It is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their genetically determined reference levels, provided the environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

Jan 18
We started this thread with your I think some of our misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about language. I think you are correct that your question reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine landscape…

… I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy existing and being continually restructured within a single organism. …

My “landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new connections and new control units, the elimination of connections or of control units, and the variation of the parameter values of existing connections. New control units will be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving those below them as newly “top”.

Here’s a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal connections have been dropped, and some new control systems built.
Reorganization growth

I believe, but can’t prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies within the environment that influence the organism’s precision of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels represent complex social perceptions, such as the “self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

================

[Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don’t all mean the same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example, in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its local structure.]

If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new “top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.


One question, related to the plausibility of the strict hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs. Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of course, the simulation would require the construction of an environment sufficiently complex to justify the development of a multi-level control structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

Martin

Â

Â

Hi Philip,

well your answer is vague. In some parts you are answering my question in some you don’t. Conserning the first »package« of our problem I understood that you didn’t support your thesis that »Schumann resonance« provide Your thesis was categorical and exclusive :

PJY earlier :

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from

But I’m satisfied with your new answer. It’s much closer to what I beleive it happened. Of course we can’t know whether it did or not. But science try to come as much as close to what really happened in the past. Do you know for any other method that could come near to what »really« happened in the past ?

PJY :

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you. Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life…

HB :

Well I like your wording much more then that with which you come on CSGnet earlier. Anyway I think that you new »definition« of influences of Earth magnetism is much more acceptable. The emphasis is on : Â

»In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.«. So magnetism CAN SUPPORT the beggining of life among other processes, which are mostly scientifically defined. So you probably couldn’t avoid using science in »proving« what were the references for life.

As the other question is concerned whether you like science or not (that’s of course your privilige) my oppinion is that you are »one sided« observer of science. You are tryng to show it as »bad thing« in our nowadays sociseties.  Did i understood you right ?

This discussion could go into inifnity. So to avoid »black and white coloring of science« I’ll ask you whether you are using car and computer ? Do you think that science is needed to make these technological devices and many others which you maybe use to make your life more comfortable ?

Best,

Boris

431.jpg

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 7:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Boris,

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you. Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.

I don’t know what’s going to happen to man in the future, but I think that if you fast-forward the time, you’re not going to see a futuristic society. You simply are not going to read in the paper " in the year 2025 , a scientist makes a breakthrough discovery which leads to bla bla bla and now there is peace on earth ". Have you ever heard of a guy named Edward Leedskalnin? Back in the 30s or 40s he built Coral Castle… Yea, well let’s just say he didn’t tell anybody exactly how he did it, so I don’t know exactly how his technology worked. But he built it alone. He did what billions of people claim to be impossible, and he did it alone. He is currently unrecognized for his scientific contributions. As far as I’m concerned, science can take a hike. Ed disproved the fundamental assumptions of physics by predicting and successfully making observations of celestial bodies which modern physics does not have the grounds to predict. He claimed his technology was based on the same fundamental concepts used to build ALL the megalithic structures on earth.

Now tell me this, Boris, do you think Ed used the scientific method to build his machines? Where would you see the logic of falsifiable hypothesis explicitly spelled out? It’s almost as if, in the same way as a perceptual control system just happens to automatically calculate inverse-kinetics without explicitly doing so, Ed automatically proved the most difficult problems of science could be solved by controlling a few perceptual variables. He did leave some hints, by the way. His technology is based on the intersection of geometry and prime numerology. And in the production of sound frequencies to generate forces by amplifying power.

Everything in the universe, matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the elements have been mapped to these geometries. In fact, the exact same geometric structures have been observed at all ranges of the observable universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of galactic superclusters. This, at least, I applaud scientists for. It took the collaboration of many individuals to gather this information. But at the end of the day, it’s just observation (not prediction). Additionally, this information does not need to be known to build the technology that Ed built. He certainly did not know all this stuff. Gathering this information and then trying to integrate it into our current technology, without having already built the futurine technology, is not only like taking the long path to get from one point to another, but rather like curving around the target point, doing spirals around it, and then trying to double back and hit the point with an inverted spiral which doesn’t intersect any of the curves we took while circling the point 8 times in the first place. It’s a joke. This is why I said that we are relying on accidentally discovered connections between geometry and physics. Whereas Ed Leedskalnin was doing it more on purpose. But we won’t get to where Ed got simply for the same reasons as inverse-kinematics won’t control an arm better than Bill’s model.

So not to burst anybody’s bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science in which everybody doesn’t know everything. Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human insect colony where everybody specializes because they need to for the colony to survive. You want to call yourselves by your title, call yourselves “human” and look to see what humans have accomplished in the universe and chase only after the achievements of immortals. That’s what Ed did. Who was Ed? A genius? He was a simple stone setter by trade. Then a lumberjack. Then an amusement park host. But he was a geometer. Humans are geometers. We measure geometries and we control our measurements. In my opinion, at the end of the day, when everything is done and figured out, this is why PCT would have truly shone. By forcing us to understand that WE control our measurements, and not the other way around.

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

I put my text under yours.

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:19 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

PJY :

What does it matter if I respect science?

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

Let me repeat some sentences you used to express your attitude to science :

  1.   I'm sick of these new age scientists trying to come up with stupid adjectival juxtapositions to describe something they hope exists.
    
  2.   In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic game called science,
    
  3.   If you haven't figured it out yet, scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream chasers running after a science which has gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of pure math.
    

I asked you if you are spitting on science, but you didn’t answer.

And now you are using science to prove your judgement about where references come from. Where is your phenomenology explanation ?

Did I get everything right ?

Best Boris

P.S. I’m still interested how Schumann Resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth or how the references come from Schumann Resonance ?

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

If I understood right, your tip about Scumann is scientific explanation. So you do afterall respect science ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from.

HB :

I’m interested how Scumann resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth ?

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

10:00 - water memory

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Phil 6/26 11:04 am]

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance?

This is where references comes from.

Watch this movie if you have time:

RESONANCE ~ Beings Of Frequency Documentary Film

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further, but this sketch that might be useful.

===========
Jan 14

It is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their genetically determined reference levels, provided the environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

Jan 18
We started this thread with your I think some of our misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about language. I think you are correct that your question reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine landscape…

… I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy existing and being continually restructured within a single organism. …

My “landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new connections and new control units, the elimination of connections or of control units, and the variation of the parameter values of existing connections. New control units will be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving those below them as newly “top”.

Here’s a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal connections have been dropped, and some new control systems built.
Reorganization growth

I believe, but can’t prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies within the environment that influence the organism’s precision of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels represent complex social perceptions, such as the “self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

================

[Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don’t all mean the same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example, in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its local structure.]

If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new “top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.


One question, related to the plausibility of the strict hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs. Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of course, the simulation would require the construction of an environment sufficiently complex to justify the development of a multi-level control structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

Martin

Science does not create car and computer. Logic creates. Science and creation are not the same. Science is like looking at behavior as output, trying to show numbers and publish. Creation is not this. Life does not follow the same processes as science does, and science cannot define life without realizing the concept of perceptual control system organization. Survival of the fittest thinking is not good. It takes away focus from individual’s purpose and so we are only left with observable output of evolutionary processes. To ask why does some animal have the shape it has, and then to associate it with the behavior of other animals preying on it, then you ignore the fact that the shape of almost any animal contains the golden ratio. The golden ratio is found also in the solar system: in the distribution of rings of saturn, in the distance between the earth and moon and other planets, in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the organization of the pyramids on Mars (which are organized in a fibbonaci spiral as well as a star of david). It is no coincidence that we find these numbers in our solar system, for it is only in such a perfect system that we will exist. But our system is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and the Ones who built the megalithic structures understood this and so they built the megaliths to protect the earth and the solar system. The purpose of these structures was to receive as input the geometrical flow patterns of the system and protect these inputs from disturbance. The people who built these structures are the protectors of the earth. They do not utilize scientific definition, they have their own. But they are probably like us, perceptual controllers, and there is nothing which literally prevents us from being like them (except for conflict between psychology and PCT). And if its done, science will no longer be of service to us, just as it is no longer of service to the humans who created the face on mars. If you havent realized, humans are done evolving. You will most likely never find a more developed thing in the universe than a human being. A human body cannot evolve further, as already everything in the body follows the flows in the shape of the golden geometry. All our bones and the relations between them is Phi. All which is left is for our backwards scientific logic to reorganize around the intrinsic shapes and references of the system we live in.

431.jpg

···

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

well your answer is vague. In some parts you are answering my question in some you don’t. Conserning the first »package« of our problem I understood that you didn’t support your thesis that »Schumann resonance« provide Your thesis was categorical and exclusive :

PJY earlier :

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from

Â

But I’m satisfied with your new answer. It’s much closer to what I beleive it happened. Of course we can’t know whether it did or not. But science try to come as much as close to what really happened in the past. Do you know for any other method that could come near to what »really« happened in the past ?

Â

PJY :

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you.  Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.Â

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life…

Â

HB :

Well I like your wording much more then that with which you come on CSGnet earlier. Anyway I think that you new »definition« of influences of Earth magnetism is much more acceptable. The emphasis is on : Â

Â

»In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.«. So magnetism CAN SUPPORT the beggining of life among other processes, which are mostly scientifically defined. So you probably couldn’t avoid using science in »proving« what were the references for life.

Â

As the other question is concerned whether you like science or not (that’s of course your privilige) my oppinion is that you are »one sided« observer of science. You are tryng to show it as »bad thing« in our nowadays sociseties.  Did i understood you right ?

Â

This discussion could go into inifnity. So to avoid »black and white coloring of science« I’ll ask you whether you are using car and computer ? Do you think that science is needed to make these technological devices and many others which you maybe use to make your life more comfortable ?

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 7:35 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

Boris,

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

Â

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you.  Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.Â

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life. Â

I don’t know what’s going to happen to man in the future, but I think that if you fast-forward the time, you’re not going to see a futuristic society.  You simply are not going to read in the paper " in the year 2025 , a scientist makes a breakthrough discovery which leads to bla bla bla and now there is peace on earth ".  Have you ever heard of a guy named Edward Leedskalnin? Back in the 30s or 40s he built Coral Castle… Yea, well let’s just say he didn’t tell anybody exactly how he did it, so I don’t know exactly how his technology worked. But he built it alone.  He did what billions of people claim to be impossible, and he did it alone. He is currently unrecognized for his scientific contributions. As far as I’m concerned, science can take a hike. Ed disproved the fundamental assumptions of physics by  predicting and  successfully making observations of celestial bodies which modern physics does not have the grounds to predict. He claimed his technology was based on the same fundamental concepts used to build ALL the megalithic structures on earth.Â

Now tell me this, Boris, do you think Ed used the  scientific method to build his machines?  Where would you see the logic of falsifiable hypothesis explicitly spelled out? It’s almost as if, in the same way as a perceptual control system just happens to automatically calculate inverse-kinetics without explicitly doing so, Ed automatically proved the most difficult problems of science could be solved by controlling a few perceptual variables. He did leave some hints, by the way. His technology is based on the intersection of geometry and prime numerology. And in the production of sound frequencies to generate forces by amplifying power. Â

Everything in the universe, matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the elements have been mapped to these geometries.  In fact, the exact same geometric structures have been observed at all ranges of the observable universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of galactic superclusters. This, at least, I applaud scientists for. It took the collaboration of many individuals to gather this information. But at the end of the day, it’s just observation (not prediction). Additionally, this information does not need to be known to build the technology that Ed built. He certainly did not know all this stuff. Gathering this information and then trying to integrate it into our current technology, without having already built the futurine technology, is not only like taking the long path to get from one point to another, but rather like curving around the target point, doing spirals around it, and then trying to double back and hit the point with an inverted spiral which doesn’t intersect any of the curves we took while circling the point 8 times in the first place.  It’s a joke. This is why I said that we are relying on accidentally discovered connections between geometry and physics. Whereas Ed Leedskalnin was doing it more on purpose. But we won’t get to where Ed got simply for the same reasons as inverse-kinematics won’t control an arm better than Bill’s model.Â

So not to burst anybody’s bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science in which everybody doesn’t know everything. Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human insect colony where everybody specializes  because they need to for the colony to survive. You want to call yourselves by your title, call yourselves “human” and look to see what humans have accomplished in the universe and chase only after the achievements of immortals. That’s what Ed did. Who was Ed? A genius? He was a simple stone setter by trade. Then a lumberjack. Then an amusement park host. But he was a geometer. Humans are geometers. We measure geometries and we control our measurements. In my opinion, at the end of the day, when everything is done and figured out, this is why PCT would have truly shone. By forcing us to understand that WE control our measurements, and not the other way around.Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

I put my text under yours.

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:19 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

PJY :

What does it matter if I respect science?

Â

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

Â

Let me repeat some sentences you used to express your attitude to science :

1.      I’m sick of these new age scientists trying to come up with stupid adjectival juxtapositions to describe something they hope exists.

2.      In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic game called science,

3.      If you haven’t figured it out yet, scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream chasers running after a science which has gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of pure math.

Â

I asked you if you are spitting on science, but you didn’t answer.

And now you are using science to prove your judgement about where references come from. Where is your phenomenology explanation ?

Â

Did I get everything right ?

Â

Best Boris

Â

P.S. I’m still interested how Schumann Resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth or how the references come from Schumann Resonance ?

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

If I understood right, your tip about Scumann is scientific explanation. So you do afterall respect science ?

Â

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from.

Â

HB :

I’m interested how Scumann resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth ?

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

10:00 -Â water memory

Â

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Phil 6/26 11:04 am]

Â

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Â

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance?

Â

This is where references comes from.

Â

Watch this movie if you have time:

Â

RESONANCE ~ Beings Of Frequency Documentary Film

Â

Â

Â

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Â

Â

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further, but this sketch that might be useful.

===========
Jan 14

It is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their genetically determined reference levels, provided the environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

Jan 18
We started this thread with your I think some of our misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about language. I think you are correct that your question reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine landscape…

… I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy existing and being continually restructured within a single organism. …

My “landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new connections and new control units, the elimination of connections or of control units, and the variation of the parameter values of existing connections. New control units will be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving those below them as newly “top”.

Here’s a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal connections have been dropped, and some new control systems built.

I believe, but can’t prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies within the environment that influence the organism’s precision of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels represent complex social perceptions, such as the “self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

================

[Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don’t all mean the same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example, in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its local structure.]

If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new “top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.


One question, related to the plausibility of the strict hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs. Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of course, the simulation would require the construction of an environment sufficiently complex to justify the development of a multi-level control structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

Martin

Â

Â

Hi Philip,

well I hope you won’t mind if I tell you that I didin’t understand all what you wrote. It’s your way of thinking and you have every right to have it. I aslo think that we turned from our »course of discussion«.

I think that it is important to understand that also scientist are people, some different kind of Live control systems with their own way of thinking and they are contributing to our welbeing as many others do. We should be big society of people cooperating instead of severe conflicting with each other. I see it like that.

Science is not just a term, but represent a huge amount of people who are thinking in specific way. So I think that your rights are equal to their rights. As human beings they have the same rights to have their way of thinking, as you have yours. And differences between LCS are evolutionry grounded. Differences between people are inborn, so the references for the organisms are geneticaly grounded. We just have to try to co-leave with whatever nature created.

So maybe mutual respect is nedded to different ways of thinking and tolerance in common life, which is quite short. Let us not behave in destructive way. I beleive that we should live in contributing constructive and positive thinking.

Best,

Boris

Â

431.jpg

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 12:05 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Science does not create car and computer. Logic creates. Science and creation are not the same. Science is like looking at behavior as output, trying to show numbers and publish. Creation is not this. Life does not follow the same processes as science does, and science cannot define life without realizing the concept of perceptual control system organization. Survival of the fittest thinking is not good. It takes away focus from individual’s purpose and so we are only left with observable output of evolutionary processes. To ask why does some animal have the shape it has, and then to associate it with the behavior of other animals preying on it, then you ignore the fact that the shape of almost any animal contains the golden ratio. The golden ratio is found also in the solar system: in the distribution of rings of saturn, in the distance between the earth and moon and other planets, in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the organization of the pyramids on Mars (which are organized in a fibbonaci spiral as well as a star of david). It is no coincidence that we find these numbers in our solar system, for it is only in such a perfect system that we will exist. But our system is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and the Ones who built the megalithic structures understood this and so they built the megaliths to protect the earth and the solar system. The purpose of these structures was to receive as input the geometrical flow patterns of the system and protect these inputs from disturbance. The people who built these structures are the protectors of the earth. They do not utilize scientific definition, they have their own. But they are probably like us, perceptual controllers, and there is nothing which literally prevents us from being like them (except for conflict between psychology and PCT). And if its done, science will no longer be of service to us, just as it is no longer of service to the humans who created the face on mars. If you havent realized, humans are done evolving. You will most likely never find a more developed thing in the universe than a human being. A human body cannot evolve further, as already everything in the body follows the flows in the shape of the golden geometry. All our bones and the relations between them is Phi. All which is left is for our backwards scientific logic to reorganize around the intrinsic shapes and references of the system we live in.

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

well your answer is vague. In some parts you are answering my question in some you don’t. Conserning the first »package« of our problem I understood that you didn’t support your thesis that »Schumann resonance« provide Your thesis was categorical and exclusive :

PJY earlier :

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from

But I’m satisfied with your new answer. It’s much closer to what I beleive it happened. Of course we can’t know whether it did or not. But science try to come as much as close to what really happened in the past. Do you know for any other method that could come near to what »really« happened in the past ?

PJY :

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you. Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life…

HB :

Well I like your wording much more then that with which you come on CSGnet earlier. Anyway I think that you new »definition« of influences of Earth magnetism is much more acceptable. The emphasis is on :

»In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.«. So magnetism CAN SUPPORT the beggining of life among other processes, which are mostly scientifically defined. So you probably couldn’t avoid using science in »proving« what were the references for life.

As the other question is concerned whether you like science or not (that’s of course your privilige) my oppinion is that you are »one sided« observer of science. You are tryng to show it as »bad thing« in our nowadays sociseties. Did i understood you right ?

This discussion could go into inifnity. So to avoid »black and white coloring of science« I’ll ask you whether you are using car and computer ? Do you think that science is needed to make these technological devices and many others which you maybe use to make your life more comfortable ?

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 7:35 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Boris,

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you. Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.

I don’t know what’s going to happen to man in the future, but I think that if you fast-forward the time, you’re not going to see a futuristic society. You simply are not going to read in the paper " in the year 2025 , a scientist makes a breakthrough discovery which leads to bla bla bla and now there is peace on earth ". Have you ever heard of a guy named Edward Leedskalnin? Back in the 30s or 40s he built Coral Castle… Yea, well let’s just say he didn’t tell anybody exactly how he did it, so I don’t know exactly how his technology worked. But he built it alone. He did what billions of people claim to be impossible, and he did it alone. He is currently unrecognized for his scientific contributions. As far as I’m concerned, science can take a hike. Ed disproved the fundamental assumptions of physics by predicting and successfully making observations of celestial bodies which modern physics does not have the grounds to predict. He claimed his technology was based on the same fundamental concepts used to build ALL the megalithic structures on earth.

Now tell me this, Boris, do you think Ed used the scientific method to build his machines? Where would you see the logic of falsifiable hypothesis explicitly spelled out? It’s almost as if, in the same way as a perceptual control system just happens to automatically calculate inverse-kinetics without explicitly doing so, Ed automatically proved the most difficult problems of science could be solved by controlling a few perceptual variables. He did leave some hints, by the way. His technology is based on the intersection of geometry and prime numerology. And in the production of sound frequencies to generate forces by amplifying power.

Everything in the universe, matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the elements have been mapped to these geometries. In fact, the exact same geometric structures have been observed at all ranges of the observable universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of galactic superclusters. This, at least, I applaud scientists for. It took the collaboration of many individuals to gather this information. But at the end of the day, it’s just observation (not prediction). Additionally, this information does not need to be known to build the technology that Ed built. He certainly did not know all this stuff. Gathering this information and then trying to integrate it into our current technology, without having already built the futurine technology, is not only like taking the long path to get from one point to another, but rather like curving around the target point, doing spirals around it, and then trying to double back and hit the point with an inverted spiral which doesn’t intersect any of the curves we took while circling the point 8 times in the first place. It’s a joke. This is why I said that we are relying on accidentally discovered connections between geometry and physics. Whereas Ed Leedskalnin was doing it more on purpose. But we won’t get to where Ed got simply for the same reasons as inverse-kinematics won’t control an arm better than Bill’s model.

So not to burst anybody’s bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science in which everybody doesn’t know everything. Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human insect colony where everybody specializes because they need to for the colony to survive. You want to call yourselves by your title, call yourselves “human” and look to see what humans have accomplished in the universe and chase only after the achievements of immortals. That’s what Ed did. Who was Ed? A genius? He was a simple stone setter by trade. Then a lumberjack. Then an amusement park host. But he was a geometer. Humans are geometers. We measure geometries and we control our measurements. In my opinion, at the end of the day, when everything is done and figured out, this is why PCT would have truly shone. By forcing us to understand that WE control our measurements, and not the other way around.

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

I put my text under yours.

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:19 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

PJY :

What does it matter if I respect science?

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

Let me repeat some sentences you used to express your attitude to science :

  1.   I'm sick of these new age scientists trying to come up with stupid adjectival juxtapositions to describe something they hope exists.
    
  2.   In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic game called science,
    
  3.   If you haven't figured it out yet, scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream chasers running after a science which has gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of pure math.
    

I asked you if you are spitting on science, but you didn’t answer.

And now you are using science to prove your judgement about where references come from. Where is your phenomenology explanation ?

Did I get everything right ?

Best Boris

P.S. I’m still interested how Schumann Resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth or how the references come from Schumann Resonance ?

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

If I understood right, your tip about Scumann is scientific explanation. So you do afterall respect science ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from.

HB :

I’m interested how Scumann resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth ?

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

10:00 - water memory

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Phil 6/26 11:04 am]

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance?

This is where references comes from.

Watch this movie if you have time:

RESONANCE ~ Beings Of Frequency Documentary Film

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further, but this sketch that might be useful.

===========
Jan 14

It is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their genetically determined reference levels, provided the environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

Jan 18
We started this thread with your I think some of our misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about language. I think you are correct that your question reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine landscape…

… I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy existing and being continually restructured within a single organism. …

My “landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new connections and new control units, the elimination of connections or of control units, and the variation of the parameter values of existing connections. New control units will be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving those below them as newly “top”.

Here’s a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal connections have been dropped, and some new control systems built.
Reorganization growth

I believe, but can’t prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies within the environment that influence the organism’s precision of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels represent complex social perceptions, such as the “self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

================

[Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don’t all mean the same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example, in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its local structure.]

If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new “top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.


One question, related to the plausibility of the strict hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs. Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of course, the simulation would require the construction of an environment sufficiently complex to justify the development of a multi-level control structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

Martin

Boris, I’m just wondering, what nationality are you? Your grammar seems very similar to Romanian.  Â

And to cap our discussion: I feel that, because we are conscious beings, we can arbitrarily select our reference values (to the extent that we may succesfully carry out the process of reorganization). Because we can theoretically choose any reference value, I don’t think there NEEDS to be any evolutionary basis for why we choose our reference values. For instance, I can choose to do something because I held a particular belief which was derived from a logical proof rather than a genetic process. If I can select a particular action based on my beliefs derived from logic, then my behavior is entirely focused on an imaginary logical operation involving WORDS. In such a case, an observer cannot use the TCV to determine what is being controlled, because what is being controlled is a WORD. People think different words when they see the same thing, but when people see a circle, they all think of the same shape and the same mathematical constants.  So if we instead restrict our discussion only to things like geometric shapes and things which we can perceive entirely thanks to genetically endowed perceptual input functions, then our logic becomes entirely constant and universal and there is no need to use words to explain how the universe works, but instead we draw shapes. The TCV then becomes used in a different way. Â

From what I understand, PCT can be used to solve very difficult math problems in very simple ways. What remains to be established is the way we reorganize math. Have you ever studied the development of pure math? What spawns mathematical revolutions? Math is essentially the curious emergence of repeatable results (i.e. controllable perceptions) in the absense of any reason except for the proofs we construct in particular logical systems. For instance, Carl Gauss and Everest Galois invented modular logic and Galois representation theory, respectively, which are now being used to prove (through what is known as the Langlands Program) that connections exist between different types of geometric representations of solutions to all sorts of classes of algebraic equations. Why do these connections exist?  Nobody really knows, but any time we prove something, it is like a permanently controlled perception. You cannot disprove something already proven unless you reorganize the entire foundation of the math.  So let me ask you now, what do you think is going to be the end of all this? Why are these people, who are doing this math, saying "I don’t care about the practical application of math, I do it for its own sake, because it is truth." What is the purpose of a mathematicians behavior?  Would you be able to run a TCV on it? In the absense of controllable results, the behavior of a mathematician would be impossible. Obviously, they have figured out a way to bring purpose to their behavior (a purpose composed quintessentially of controlled perceptions). Is there a hierarchy in pure math? PCT and pure math are the only two incorruptible powers in existence today, and they must have so much in common.        Â

431.jpg

···

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

well I hope you won’t mind if I tell you that I didin’t understand all what you wrote. It’s your way of thinking and you have every right to have it. I aslo think that we turned from our »course of discussion«.

Â

I think that it is important to understand that also scientist are people, some different kind of Live control systems with their own way of thinking and they are contributing to our welbeing as many others do. We should be big society of people cooperating instead of severe conflicting with each other. I see it like that.

Â

Science is not just a term, but represent a huge amount of people who are thinking in specific way. So I think that your rights are equal to their rights. As human beings they have the same rights to have their way of thinking, as you have yours. And differences between LCS are evolutionry grounded. Differences between people are inborn, so the references for the organisms are geneticaly grounded. We just have to try to co-leave with whatever nature created.

Â

So maybe mutual respect is nedded to different ways of thinking and tolerance in common life, which is quite short. Let us not behave in destructive way. I beleive that we should live in contributing constructive and positive thinking.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 12:05 AM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

Science does not create car and computer. Logic creates. Science and creation are not the same. Science is like looking at behavior as output, trying to show numbers and publish. Creation is not this. Life does not follow the same processes as science does, and science cannot define life without realizing the concept of perceptual control system organization. Survival of the fittest thinking is not good. It takes away focus from individual’s purpose and so we are only left with observable output of evolutionary processes. To ask why does some animal have the shape it has, and then to associate it with the behavior of other animals preying on it, then you ignore the fact that the shape of almost any animal contains the golden ratio. The golden ratio is found also in the solar system: in the distribution of rings of saturn, in the distance between the earth and moon and other planets, in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the organization of the pyramids on Mars (which are organized in a fibbonaci spiral as well as a star of david). It is no coincidence that we find these numbers in our solar system, for it is only in such a perfect system that we will exist. But our system is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and the Ones who built the megalithic structures understood this and so they built the megaliths to protect the earth and the solar system. The purpose of these structures was to receive as input the geometrical flow patterns of the system and protect these inputs from disturbance. The people who built these structures are the protectors of the earth. They do not utilize scientific definition, they have their own. But they are probably like us, perceptual controllers, and there is nothing which literally prevents us from being like them (except for conflict between psychology and PCT). And if its done, science will no longer be of service to us, just as it is no longer of service to the humans who created the face on mars. If you havent realized, humans are done evolving. You will most likely never find a more developed thing in the universe than a human being. A human body cannot evolve further, as already everything in the body follows the flows in the shape of the golden geometry. All our bones and the relations between them is Phi. All which is left is for our backwards scientific logic to reorganize around the intrinsic shapes and references of the system we live in.

Â

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

well your answer is vague. In some parts you are answering my question in some you don’t. Conserning the first »package« of our problem I understood that you didn’t support your thesis that »Schumann resonance« provide Your thesis was categorical and exclusive :

PJY earlier :

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from

Â

But I’m satisfied with your new answer. It’s much closer to what I beleive it happened. Of course we can’t know whether it did or not. But science try to come as much as close to what really happened in the past. Do you know for any other method that could come near to what »really« happened in the past ?

Â

PJY :

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you.  Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.Â

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life…

Â

HB :

Well I like your wording much more then that with which you come on CSGnet earlier. Anyway I think that you new »definition« of influences of Earth magnetism is much more acceptable. The emphasis is on : Â

Â

»In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.«. So magnetism CAN SUPPORT the beggining of life among other processes, which are mostly scientifically defined. So you probably couldn’t avoid using science in »proving« what were the references for life.

Â

As the other question is concerned whether you like science or not (that’s of course your privilige) my oppinion is that you are »one sided« observer of science. You are tryng to show it as »bad thing« in our nowadays sociseties.  Did i understood you right ?

Â

This discussion could go into inifnity. So to avoid »black and white coloring of science« I’ll ask you whether you are using car and computer ? Do you think that science is needed to make these technological devices and many others which you maybe use to make your life more comfortable ?

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 7:35 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

Boris,

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

Â

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you.  Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.Â

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life. Â

I don’t know what’s going to happen to man in the future, but I think that if you fast-forward the time, you’re not going to see a futuristic society.  You simply are not going to read in the paper " in the year 2025 , a scientist makes a breakthrough discovery which leads to bla bla bla and now there is peace on earth ".  Have you ever heard of a guy named Edward Leedskalnin? Back in the 30s or 40s he built Coral Castle… Yea, well let’s just say he didn’t tell anybody exactly how he did it, so I don’t know exactly how his technology worked. But he built it alone.  He did what billions of people claim to be impossible, and he did it alone. He is currently unrecognized for his scientific contributions. As far as I’m concerned, science can take a hike. Ed disproved the fundamental assumptions of physics by  predicting and  successfully making observations of celestial bodies which modern physics does not have the grounds to predict. He claimed his technology was based on the same fundamental concepts used to build ALL the megalithic structures on earth.Â

Now tell me this, Boris, do you think Ed used the  scientific method to build his machines?  Where would you see the logic of falsifiable hypothesis explicitly spelled out? It’s almost as if, in the same way as a perceptual control system just happens to automatically calculate inverse-kinetics without explicitly doing so, Ed automatically proved the most difficult problems of science could be solved by controlling a few perceptual variables. He did leave some hints, by the way. His technology is based on the intersection of geometry and prime numerology. And in the production of sound frequencies to generate forces by amplifying power. Â

Everything in the universe, matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the elements have been mapped to these geometries.  In fact, the exact same geometric structures have been observed at all ranges of the observable universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of galactic superclusters. This, at least, I applaud scientists for. It took the collaboration of many individuals to gather this information. But at the end of the day, it’s just observation (not prediction). Additionally, this information does not need to be known to build the technology that Ed built. He certainly did not know all this stuff. Gathering this information and then trying to integrate it into our current technology, without having already built the futurine technology, is not only like taking the long path to get from one point to another, but rather like curving around the target point, doing spirals around it, and then trying to double back and hit the point with an inverted spiral which doesn’t intersect any of the curves we took while circling the point 8 times in the first place.  It’s a joke. This is why I said that we are relying on accidentally discovered connections between geometry and physics. Whereas Ed Leedskalnin was doing it more on purpose. But we won’t get to where Ed got simply for the same reasons as inverse-kinematics won’t control an arm better than Bill’s model.Â

So not to burst anybody’s bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science in which everybody doesn’t know everything. Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human insect colony where everybody specializes  because they need to for the colony to survive. You want to call yourselves by your title, call yourselves “human” and look to see what humans have accomplished in the universe and chase only after the achievements of immortals. That’s what Ed did. Who was Ed? A genius? He was a simple stone setter by trade. Then a lumberjack. Then an amusement park host. But he was a geometer. Humans are geometers. We measure geometries and we control our measurements. In my opinion, at the end of the day, when everything is done and figured out, this is why PCT would have truly shone. By forcing us to understand that WE control our measurements, and not the other way around.Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

I put my text under yours.

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:19 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

PJY :

What does it matter if I respect science?

Â

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

Â

Let me repeat some sentences you used to express your attitude to science :

1.      I’m sick of these new age scientists trying to come up with stupid adjectival juxtapositions to describe something they hope exists.

2.      In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic game called science,

3.      If you haven’t figured it out yet, scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream chasers running after a science which has gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of pure math.

Â

I asked you if you are spitting on science, but you didn’t answer.

And now you are using science to prove your judgement about where references come from. Where is your phenomenology explanation ?

Â

Did I get everything right ?

Â

Best Boris

Â

P.S. I’m still interested how Schumann Resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth or how the references come from Schumann Resonance ?

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

If I understood right, your tip about Scumann is scientific explanation. So you do afterall respect science ?

Â

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from.

Â

HB :

I’m interested how Scumann resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth ?

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

10:00 -Â water memory

Â

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Phil 6/26 11:04 am]

Â

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Â

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance?

Â

This is where references comes from.

Â

Watch this movie if you have time:

Â

RESONANCE ~ Beings Of Frequency Documentary Film

Â

Â

Â

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Â

Â

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further, but this sketch that might be useful.

===========
Jan 14

It is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their genetically determined reference levels, provided the environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

Jan 18
We started this thread with your I think some of our misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about language. I think you are correct that your question reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine landscape…

… I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy existing and being continually restructured within a single organism. …

My “landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new connections and new control units, the elimination of connections or of control units, and the variation of the parameter values of existing connections. New control units will be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving those below them as newly “top”.

Here’s a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal connections have been dropped, and some new control systems built.

I believe, but can’t prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies within the environment that influence the organism’s precision of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels represent complex social perceptions, such as the “self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

================

[Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don’t all mean the same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example, in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its local structure.]

If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new “top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.


One question, related to the plausibility of the strict hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs. Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of course, the simulation would require the construction of an environment sufficiently complex to justify the development of a multi-level control structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

Martin

Â

Â

Â

Philip,

with wording I thought your way of putting your exclusive and a less exclusive contradicting thoughts in our discussion. For example :

  1.   Exclusive : Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from
    
  2.   Less exclusive : »In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.«. Probably meaning that Schumann Resonnace can support beggining of life.
    

I’m not Romanian, but your grammar seems like French J. What’s my nationality got to do with your general and less general contradicting thoughts. Did you try to be insulting ? It does not seem to be my problem if you came on CSGnet like an »elephant in the store with porcelan«, insulting who ever you wanted. I’d really like to meet you, because I have a filling that you are quite educated and well versed man. Your agressive »wording« somehow doesn’t feet on your cultural level.

So if you are French we could meet somewhere in Italy J. Maybe you can guess from where I am, although Martin recently many times »betrayed« my nationality, although I think I never uncover that he is from Canada J.

Best,

Boris

431.jpg

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 2:16 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Boris, I’m just wondering, what nationality are you? Your grammar seems very similar to Romanian.

And to cap our discussion: I feel that, because we are conscious beings, we can arbitrarily select our reference values (to the extent that we may succesfully carry out the process of reorganization). Because we can theoretically choose any reference value, I don’t think there NEEDS to be any evolutionary basis for why we choose our reference values. For instance, I can choose to do something because I held a particular belief which was derived from a logical proof rather than a genetic process. If I can select a particular action based on my beliefs derived from logic, then my behavior is entirely focused on an imaginary logical operation involving WORDS. In such a case, an observer cannot use the TCV to determine what is being controlled, because what is being controlled is a WORD. People think different words when they see the same thing, but when people see a circle, they all think of the same shape and the same mathematical constants. So if we instead restrict our discussion only to things like geometric shapes and things which we can perceive entirely thanks to genetically endowed perceptual input functions, then our logic becomes entirely constant and universal and there is no need to use words to explain how the universe works, but instead we draw shapes. The TCV then becomes used in a different way.

From what I understand, PCT can be used to solve very difficult math problems in very simple ways. What remains to be established is the way we reorganize math. Have you ever studied the development of pure math? What spawns mathematical revolutions? Math is essentially the curious emergence of repeatable results (i.e. controllable perceptions) in the absense of any reason except for the proofs we construct in particular logical systems. For instance, Carl Gauss and Everest Galois invented modular logic and Galois representation theory, respectively, which are now being used to prove (through what is known as the Langlands Program) that connections exist between different types of geometric representations of solutions to all sorts of classes of algebraic equations. Why do these connections exist? Nobody really knows, but any time we prove something, it is like a permanently controlled perception. You cannot disprove something already proven unless you reorganize the entire foundation of the math. So let me ask you now, what do you think is going to be the end of all this? Why are these people, who are doing this math, saying “I don’t care about the practical application of math, I do it for its own sake, because it is truth.” What is the purpose of a mathematicians behavior? Would you be able to run a TCV on it? In the absense of controllable results, the behavior of a mathematician would be impossible. Obviously, they have figured out a way to bring purpose to their behavior (a purpose composed quintessentially of controlled perceptions). Is there a hierarchy in pure math? PCT and pure math are the only two incorruptible powers in existence today, and they must have so much in common.

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

well I hope you won’t mind if I tell you that I didin’t understand all what you wrote. It’s your way of thinking and you have every right to have it. I aslo think that we turned from our »course of discussion«.

I think that it is important to understand that also scientist are people, some different kind of Live control systems with their own way of thinking and they are contributing to our welbeing as many others do. We should be big society of people cooperating instead of severe conflicting with each other. I see it like that.

Science is not just a term, but represent a huge amount of people who are thinking in specific way. So I think that your rights are equal to their rights. As human beings they have the same rights to have their way of thinking, as you have yours. And differences between LCS are evolutionry grounded. Differences between people are inborn, so the references for the organisms are geneticaly grounded. We just have to try to co-leave with whatever nature created.

So maybe mutual respect is nedded to different ways of thinking and tolerance in common life, which is quite short. Let us not behave in destructive way. I beleive that we should live in contributing constructive and positive thinking.

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 12:05 AM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Science does not create car and computer. Logic creates. Science and creation are not the same. Science is like looking at behavior as output, trying to show numbers and publish. Creation is not this. Life does not follow the same processes as science does, and science cannot define life without realizing the concept of perceptual control system organization. Survival of the fittest thinking is not good. It takes away focus from individual’s purpose and so we are only left with observable output of evolutionary processes. To ask why does some animal have the shape it has, and then to associate it with the behavior of other animals preying on it, then you ignore the fact that the shape of almost any animal contains the golden ratio. The golden ratio is found also in the solar system: in the distribution of rings of saturn, in the distance between the earth and moon and other planets, in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the organization of the pyramids on Mars (which are organized in a fibbonaci spiral as well as a star of david). It is no coincidence that we find these numbers in our solar system, for it is only in such a perfect system that we will exist. But our system is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and the Ones who built the megalithic structures understood this and so they built the megaliths to protect the earth and the solar system. The purpose of these structures was to receive as input the geometrical flow patterns of the system and protect these inputs from disturbance. The people who built these structures are the protectors of the earth. They do not utilize scientific definition, they have their own. But they are probably like us, perceptual controllers, and there is nothing which literally prevents us from being like them (except for conflict between psychology and PCT). And if its done, science will no longer be of service to us, just as it is no longer of service to the humans who created the face on mars. If you havent realized, humans are done evolving. You will most likely never find a more developed thing in the universe than a human being. A human body cannot evolve further, as already everything in the body follows the flows in the shape of the golden geometry. All our bones and the relations between them is Phi. All which is left is for our backwards scientific logic to reorganize around the intrinsic shapes and references of the system we live in.

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

well your answer is vague. In some parts you are answering my question in some you don’t. Conserning the first »package« of our problem I understood that you didn’t support your thesis that »Schumann resonance« provide Your thesis was categorical and exclusive :

PJY earlier :

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from

But I’m satisfied with your new answer. It’s much closer to what I beleive it happened. Of course we can’t know whether it did or not. But science try to come as much as close to what really happened in the past. Do you know for any other method that could come near to what »really« happened in the past ?

PJY :

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you. Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life…

HB :

Well I like your wording much more then that with which you come on CSGnet earlier. Anyway I think that you new »definition« of influences of Earth magnetism is much more acceptable. The emphasis is on :

»In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.«. So magnetism CAN SUPPORT the beggining of life among other processes, which are mostly scientifically defined. So you probably couldn’t avoid using science in »proving« what were the references for life.

As the other question is concerned whether you like science or not (that’s of course your privilige) my oppinion is that you are »one sided« observer of science. You are tryng to show it as »bad thing« in our nowadays sociseties. Did i understood you right ?

This discussion could go into inifnity. So to avoid »black and white coloring of science« I’ll ask you whether you are using car and computer ? Do you think that science is needed to make these technological devices and many others which you maybe use to make your life more comfortable ?

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 7:35 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Boris,

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you. Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.

I don’t know what’s going to happen to man in the future, but I think that if you fast-forward the time, you’re not going to see a futuristic society. You simply are not going to read in the paper " in the year 2025 , a scientist makes a breakthrough discovery which leads to bla bla bla and now there is peace on earth ". Have you ever heard of a guy named Edward Leedskalnin? Back in the 30s or 40s he built Coral Castle… Yea, well let’s just say he didn’t tell anybody exactly how he did it, so I don’t know exactly how his technology worked. But he built it alone. He did what billions of people claim to be impossible, and he did it alone. He is currently unrecognized for his scientific contributions. As far as I’m concerned, science can take a hike. Ed disproved the fundamental assumptions of physics by predicting and successfully making observations of celestial bodies which modern physics does not have the grounds to predict. He claimed his technology was based on the same fundamental concepts used to build ALL the megalithic structures on earth.

Now tell me this, Boris, do you think Ed used the scientific method to build his machines? Where would you see the logic of falsifiable hypothesis explicitly spelled out? It’s almost as if, in the same way as a perceptual control system just happens to automatically calculate inverse-kinetics without explicitly doing so, Ed automatically proved the most difficult problems of science could be solved by controlling a few perceptual variables. He did leave some hints, by the way. His technology is based on the intersection of geometry and prime numerology. And in the production of sound frequencies to generate forces by amplifying power.

Everything in the universe, matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the elements have been mapped to these geometries. In fact, the exact same geometric structures have been observed at all ranges of the observable universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of galactic superclusters. This, at least, I applaud scientists for. It took the collaboration of many individuals to gather this information. But at the end of the day, it’s just observation (not prediction). Additionally, this information does not need to be known to build the technology that Ed built. He certainly did not know all this stuff. Gathering this information and then trying to integrate it into our current technology, without having already built the futurine technology, is not only like taking the long path to get from one point to another, but rather like curving around the target point, doing spirals around it, and then trying to double back and hit the point with an inverted spiral which doesn’t intersect any of the curves we took while circling the point 8 times in the first place. It’s a joke. This is why I said that we are relying on accidentally discovered connections between geometry and physics. Whereas Ed Leedskalnin was doing it more on purpose. But we won’t get to where Ed got simply for the same reasons as inverse-kinematics won’t control an arm better than Bill’s model.

So not to burst anybody’s bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science in which everybody doesn’t know everything. Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human insect colony where everybody specializes because they need to for the colony to survive. You want to call yourselves by your title, call yourselves “human” and look to see what humans have accomplished in the universe and chase only after the achievements of immortals. That’s what Ed did. Who was Ed? A genius? He was a simple stone setter by trade. Then a lumberjack. Then an amusement park host. But he was a geometer. Humans are geometers. We measure geometries and we control our measurements. In my opinion, at the end of the day, when everything is done and figured out, this is why PCT would have truly shone. By forcing us to understand that WE control our measurements, and not the other way around.

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

I put my text under yours.

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:19 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

PJY :

What does it matter if I respect science?

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

Let me repeat some sentences you used to express your attitude to science :

  1.   I'm sick of these new age scientists trying to come up with stupid adjectival juxtapositions to describe something they hope exists.
    
  2.   In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic game called science,
    
  3.   If you haven't figured it out yet, scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream chasers running after a science which has gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of pure math.
    

I asked you if you are spitting on science, but you didn’t answer.

And now you are using science to prove your judgement about where references come from. Where is your phenomenology explanation ?

Did I get everything right ?

Best Boris

P.S. I’m still interested how Schumann Resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth or how the references come from Schumann Resonance ?

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

If I understood right, your tip about Scumann is scientific explanation. So you do afterall respect science ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from.

HB :

I’m interested how Scumann resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth ?

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

10:00 - water memory

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Phil 6/26 11:04 am]

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance?

This is where references comes from.

Watch this movie if you have time:

RESONANCE ~ Beings Of Frequency Documentary Film

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further, but this sketch that might be useful.

===========
Jan 14

It is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their genetically determined reference levels, provided the environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

Jan 18
We started this thread with your I think some of our misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about language. I think you are correct that your question reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine landscape…

… I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy existing and being continually restructured within a single organism. …

My “landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new connections and new control units, the elimination of connections or of control units, and the variation of the parameter values of existing connections. New control units will be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving those below them as newly “top”.

Here’s a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal connections have been dropped, and some new control systems built.
Reorganization growth

I believe, but can’t prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies within the environment that influence the organism’s precision of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels represent complex social perceptions, such as the “self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

================

[Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don’t all mean the same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example, in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its local structure.]

If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new “top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.


One question, related to the plausibility of the strict hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs. Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of course, the simulation would require the construction of an environment sufficiently complex to justify the development of a multi-level control structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

Martin

Maybe you are Croatian, like Adam, or Greek.  Your nationality has nothing to do with anything we’re discussing. I’m learning  languages and noticed patterns in the grammar.  I live in LA. And I didn’t insult anybody.  True I broke a lot of porcelain but if I see somebody took the time to paint and sign their percelain mug, I don’t break it. On the other hand, if somebody takes 10 seconds to paint their masterpiece, I’ll probably break it.Â

When I first got on CSG I was very surprised to see the state of affairs around PCT and I still am very surprised to see that the world has denied PCT to such a gruesome extent. I hope that one day science filters it’s contaminated waters. But having just been out of bioengineering school, I promise you that not even 1 person in 100 people will think about living systems as perceptual controllers. It is a totally lost world out there and I can unfortunately say that I am only lucky to have barely got out of school alive. I don’t think I am meant to live in a world with science. I truly I don’t enjoy the presence of science anymore. But I wish that one day, science finds what it’s looking for. Ill just leave science alone to find its own way.Â

431.jpg

···

On Monday, June 30, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Philip,

Â

with wording I thought your way of putting your exclusive and a less exclusive contradicting thoughts in our discussion. For example :

1.      Exclusive : Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from

2.      Less exclusive : »In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.«. Probably meaning that Schumann Resonnace can support beggining of life.

I’m not Romanian, but your grammar seems like French J. What’s my nationality got to do with your general and less general contradicting thoughts. Did you try to be insulting ? It does not seem to be my problem if you came on CSGnet like an »elephant in the store with porcelan«, insulting who ever you wanted. I’d really like to meet you, because I have a filling that you are quite educated and well versed man. Your agressive »wording« somehow doesn’t feet on your cultural level.

Â

So if you are French we could meet somewhere in Italy J. Maybe you can guess from where I am, although Martin recently many times »betrayed« my nationality, although I think I never uncover that he is from Canada J.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 2:16 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

Boris, I’m just wondering, what nationality are you? Your grammar seems very similar to Romanian.  Â

Â

And to cap our discussion: I feel that, because we are conscious beings, we can arbitrarily select our reference values (to the extent that we may succesfully carry out the process of reorganization). Because we can theoretically choose any reference value, I don’t think there NEEDS to be any evolutionary basis for why we choose our reference values. For instance, I can choose to do something because I held a particular belief which was derived from a logical proof rather than a genetic process. If I can select a particular action based on my beliefs derived from logic, then my behavior is entirely focused on an imaginary logical operation involving WORDS. In such a case, an observer cannot use the TCV to determine what is being controlled, because what is being controlled is a WORD. People think different words when they see the same thing, but when people see a circle, they all think of the same shape and the same mathematical constants.  So if we instead restrict our discussion only to things like geometric shapes and things which we can perceive entirely thanks to genetically endowed perceptual input functions, then our logic becomes entirely constant and universal and there is no need to use words to explain how the universe works, but instead we draw shapes. The TCV then becomes used in a different way. Â

From what I understand, PCT can be used to solve very difficult math problems in very simple ways. What remains to be established is the way we reorganize math. Have you ever studied the development of pure math? What spawns mathematical revolutions? Math is essentially the curious emergence of repeatable results (i.e. controllable perceptions) in the absense of any reason except for the proofs we construct in particular logical systems. For instance, Carl Gauss and Everest Galois invented modular logic and Galois representation theory, respectively, which are now being used to prove (through what is known as the Langlands Program) that connections exist between different types of geometric representations of solutions to all sorts of classes of algebraic equations. Why do these connections exist?  Nobody really knows, but any time we prove something, it is like a permanently controlled perception. You cannot disprove something already proven unless you reorganize the entire foundation of the math.  So let me ask you now, what do you think is going to be the end of all this? Why are these people, who are doing this math, saying "I don’t care about the practical application of math, I do it for its own sake, because it is truth." What is the purpose of a mathematicians behavior?  Would you be able to run a TCV on it? In the absense of controllable results, the behavior of a mathematician would be impossible. Obviously, they have figured out a way to bring purpose to their behavior (a purpose composed quintessentially of controlled perceptions). Is there a hierarchy in pure math? PCT and pure math are the only two incorruptible powers in existence today, and they must have so much in common.        Â

Â

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

well I hope you won’t mind if I tell you that I didin’t understand all what you wrote. It’s your way of thinking and you have every right to have it. I aslo think that we turned from our »course of discussion«.

Â

I think that it is important to understand that also scientist are people, some different kind of Live control systems with their own way of thinking and they are contributing to our welbeing as many others do. We should be big society of people cooperating instead of severe conflicting with each other. I see it like that.

Â

Science is not just a term, but represent a huge amount of people who are thinking in specific way. So I think that your rights are equal to their rights. As human beings they have the same rights to have their way of thinking, as you have yours. And differences between LCS are evolutionry grounded. Differences between people are inborn, so the references for the organisms are geneticaly grounded. We just have to try to co-leave with whatever nature created.

Â

So maybe mutual respect is nedded to different ways of thinking and tolerance in common life, which is quite short. Let us not behave in destructive way. I beleive that we should live in contributing constructive and positive thinking.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 12:05 AM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

Science does not create car and computer. Logic creates. Science and creation are not the same. Science is like looking at behavior as output, trying to show numbers and publish. Creation is not this. Life does not follow the same processes as science does, and science cannot define life without realizing the concept of perceptual control system organization. Survival of the fittest thinking is not good. It takes away focus from individual’s purpose and so we are only left with observable output of evolutionary processes. To ask why does some animal have the shape it has, and then to associate it with the behavior of other animals preying on it, then you ignore the fact that the shape of almost any animal contains the golden ratio. The golden ratio is found also in the solar system: in the distribution of rings of saturn, in the distance between the earth and moon and other planets, in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the organization of the pyramids on Mars (which are organized in a fibbonaci spiral as well as a star of david). It is no coincidence that we find these numbers in our solar system, for it is only in such a perfect system that we will exist. But our system is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and the Ones who built the megalithic structures understood this and so they built the megaliths to protect the earth and the solar system. The purpose of these structures was to receive as input the geometrical flow patterns of the system and protect these inputs from disturbance. The people who built these structures are the protectors of the earth. They do not utilize scientific definition, they have their own. But they are probably like us, perceptual controllers, and there is nothing which literally prevents us from being like them (except for conflict between psychology and PCT). And if its done, science will no longer be of service to us, just as it is no longer of service to the humans who created the face on mars. If you havent realized, humans are done evolving. You will most likely never find a more developed thing in the universe than a human being. A human body cannot evolve further, as already everything in the body follows the flows in the shape of the golden geometry. All our bones and the relations between them is Phi. All which is left is for our backwards scientific logic to reorganize around the intrinsic shapes and references of the system we live in.

Â

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

well your answer is vague. In some parts you are answering my question in some you don’t. Conserning the first »package« of our problem I understood that you didn’t support your thesis that »Schumann resonance« provide Your thesis was categorical and exclusive :

PJY earlier :

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from

Â

But I’m satisfied with your new answer. It’s much closer to what I beleive it happened. Of course we can’t know whether it did or not. But science try to come as much as close to what really happened in the past. Do you know for any other method that could come near to what »really« happened in the past ?

Â

PJY :

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you.  Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.Â

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life…

Â

HB :

Well I like your wording much more then that with which you come on CSGnet earlier. Anyway I think that you new »definition« of influences of Earth magnetism is much more acceptable. The emphasis is on : Â

Â

»In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.«. So magnetism CAN SUPPORT the beggining of life among other processes, which are mostly scientifically defined. So you probably couldn’t avoid using science in »proving« what were the references for life.

Â

As the other question is concerned whether you like science or not (that’s of course your privilige) my oppinion is that you are »one sided« observer of science. You are tryng to show it as »bad thing« in our nowadays sociseties.  Did i understood you right ?

Â

This discussion could go into inifnity. So to avoid »black and white coloring of science« I’ll ask you whether you are using car and computer ? Do you think that science is needed to make these technological devices and many others which you maybe use to make your life more comfortable ?

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 7:35 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

Boris,

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

Â

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you.  Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.Â

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life. Â

I don’t know what’s going to happen to man in the future, but I think that if you fast-forward the time, you’re not going to see a futuristic society.  You simply are not going to read in the paper " in the year 2025 , a scientist makes a breakthrough discovery which leads to bla bla bla and now there is peace on earth ".  Have you ever heard of a guy named Edward Leedskalnin? Back in the 30s or 40s he built Coral Castle… Yea, well let’s just say he didn’t tell anybody exactly how he did it, so I don’t know exactly how his technology worked. But he built it alone.  He did what billions of people claim to be impossible, and he did it alone. He is currently unrecognized for his scientific contributions. As far as I’m concerned, science can take a hike. Ed disproved the fundamental assumptions of physics by  predicting and  successfully making observations of celestial bodies which modern physics does not have the grounds to predict. He claimed his technology was based on the same fundamental concepts used to build ALL the megalithic structures on earth.Â

Now tell me this, Boris, do you think Ed used the  scientific method to build his machines?  Where would you see the logic of falsifiable hypothesis explicitly spelled out? It’s almost as if, in the same way as a perceptual control system just happens to automatically calculate inverse-kinetics without explicitly doing so, Ed automatically proved the most difficult problems of science could be solved by controlling a few perceptual variables. He did leave some hints, by the way. His technology is based on the intersection of geometry and prime numerology. And in the production of sound frequencies to generate forces by amplifying power. Â

Everything in the universe, matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the elements have been mapped to these geometries.  In fact, the exact same geometric structures have been observed at all ranges of the observable universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of galactic superclusters. This, at least, I applaud scientists for. It took the collaboration of many individuals to gather this information. But at the end of the day, it’s just observation (not prediction). Additionally, this information does not need to be known to build the technology that Ed built. He certainly did not know all this stuff. Gathering this information and then trying to integrate it into our current technology, without having already built the futurine technology, is not only like taking the long path to get from one point to another, but rather like curving around the target point, doing spirals around it, and then trying to double back and hit the point with an inverted spiral which doesn’t intersect any of the curves we took while circling the point 8 times in the first place.  It’s a joke. This is why I said that we are relying on accidentally discovered connections between geometry and physics. Whereas Ed Leedskalnin was doing it more on purpose. But we won’t get to where Ed got simply for the same reasons as inverse-kinematics won’t control an arm better than Bill’s model.Â

So not to burst anybody’s bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science in which everybody doesn’t know everything. Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human insect colony where everybody specializes  because they need to for the colony to survive. You want to call yourselves by your title, call yourselves “human” and look to see what humans have accomplished in the universe and chase only after the achievements of immortals. That’s what Ed did. Who was Ed? A genius? He was a simple stone setter by trade. Then a lumberjack. Then an amusement park host. But he was a geometer. Humans are geometers. We measure geometries and we control our measurements. In my opinion, at the end of the day, when everything is done and figured out, this is why PCT would have truly shone. By forcing us to understand that WE control our measurements, and not the other way around.Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

I put my text under yours.

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:19 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

PJY :

What does it matter if I respect science?

Â

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

Â

Let me repeat some sentences you used to express your attitude to science :

1.      I’m sick of these new age scientists trying to come up with stupid adjectival juxtapositions to describe something they hope exists.

2.      In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic game called science,

3.      If you haven’t figured it out yet, scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream chasers running after a science which has gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of pure math.

Â

I asked you if you are spitting on science, but you didn’t answer.

And now you are using science to prove your judgement about where references come from. Where is your phenomenology explanation ?

Â

Did I get everything right ?

Â

Best Boris

Â

P.S. I’m still interested how Schumann Resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth or how the references come from Schumann Resonance ?

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

Â

If I understood right, your tip about Scumann is scientific explanation. So you do afterall respect science ?

Â

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from.

Â

HB :

I’m interested how Scumann resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth ?

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Â

10:00 -Â water memory

Â

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Phil 6/26 11:04 am]

Â

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Â

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance?

Â

This is where references comes from.

Â

Watch this movie if you have time:

Â

RESONANCE ~ Beings Of Frequency Documentary Film

Â

Â

Â

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

Â

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Â

Â

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further, but this sketch that might be useful.

===========
Jan 14

It is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their genetically determined reference levels, provided the environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

Jan 18
We started this thread with your I think some of our misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about language. I think you are correct that your question reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine landscape…

… I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy existing and being continually restructured within a single organism. …

My “landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new connections and new control units, the elimination of connections or of control units, and the variation of the parameter values of existing connections. New control units will be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving those below them as newly “top”.

Here’s a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal connections have been dropped, and some new control systems built.
Reorganization growth

I believe, but can’t prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies within the environment that influence the organism’s precision of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels represent complex social perceptions, such as the “self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

================

[Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don’t all mean the same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example, in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its local structure.]

If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new “top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.


One question, related to the plausibility of the strict hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs. Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of course, the simulation would require the construction of an environment sufficiently complex to justify the development of a multi-level control structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

Martin

Â

Â

Â

Â

Philip,

I’m not a Greek, but I’m neighbour to Adam. And in these days we are becoming more close neighbours J.

As my American grammar is concerned I agree with you. It’s bad. But it’s enough to understand to some extend what others are trying to say to me. If terms are not complicated to much. I needed quite some time to get through Bill’s books. If I’m honest, If there were not beside Bill’s books also Kent’s, Czico’s books and Martin’s explanations it would take me more years to understand PCT, than I needed in fact.

I’m trying anyway to gve my best in conversations with PCT’ers.

Which languages are you learning or studying ?

I’m glad that your guessing about my nationality has nothing to do with our discussion. So you are American. Nice. What’s the weather out there ? I’m from Ljubljana. It’s sunny, cloudy, rain, again sun. Nothing special, boring. Sea not for swimming. Too cold. Brrr….

I beleive you that you don’t want to leave in the world of science. If I’m honest, I don’t either. I’d rather leave in natural environment. And since you  mentioned Universe, and possible further (non)development of human, I’m interested also in traveling arround the Universe. Do you ?

Maybe our ideas about life on Earth are not so far appart, but until I’m using technology as a product of science, I’m not criticizing it. I’m planning to go once to live with my fried (ecologist), who is living in wooden cottage in the middle of the wood, without electricity, and other technological stuff. Maybe something like Amish. He tought me quite a lot of things about how to behave ecologicaly. I admire him and his Will to leave such a life.  But will I really get enough motivation to go and leave such a »hermit« life ? Do you ?

Well we’ll probbaly have to transpose our meeting as without science I couldn’t swimm such a distance as Atlantic ocean is J. Maybe I’ll built a boat on oar.

Best,

Boris

431.jpg

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 6:31 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Maybe you are Croatian, like Adam, or Greek. Your nationality has nothing to do with anything we’re discussing. I’m learning languages and noticed patterns in the grammar. I live in LA. And I didn’t insult anybody. True I broke a lot of porcelain but if I see somebody took the time to paint and sign their percelain mug, I don’t break it. On the other hand, if somebody takes 10 seconds to paint their masterpiece, I’ll probably break it.

When I first got on CSG I was very surprised to see the state of affairs around PCT and I still am very surprised to see that the world has denied PCT to such a gruesome extent. I hope that one day science filters it’s contaminated waters. But having just been out of bioengineering school, I promise you that not even 1 person in 100 people will think about living systems as perceptual controllers. It is a totally lost world out there and I can unfortunately say that I am only lucky to have barely got out of school alive. I don’t think I am meant to live in a world with science. I truly I don’t enjoy the presence of science anymore. But I wish that one day, science finds what it’s looking for. Ill just leave science alone to find its own way.

On Monday, June 30, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Philip,

with wording I thought your way of putting your exclusive and a less exclusive contradicting thoughts in our discussion. For example :

  1.   Exclusive : Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from
    
  2.   Less exclusive : »In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.«. Probably meaning that Schumann Resonnace can support beggining of life.
    

I’m not Romanian, but your grammar seems like French J. What’s my nationality got to do with your general and less general contradicting thoughts. Did you try to be insulting ? It does not seem to be my problem if you came on CSGnet like an »elephant in the store with porcelan«, insulting who ever you wanted. I’d really like to meet you, because I have a filling that you are quite educated and well versed man. Your agressive »wording« somehow doesn’t feet on your cultural level.

So if you are French we could meet somewhere in Italy J. Maybe you can guess from where I am, although Martin recently many times »betrayed« my nationality, although I think I never uncover that he is from Canada J.

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 2:16 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Boris, I’m just wondering, what nationality are you? Your grammar seems very similar to Romanian.

And to cap our discussion: I feel that, because we are conscious beings, we can arbitrarily select our reference values (to the extent that we may succesfully carry out the process of reorganization). Because we can theoretically choose any reference value, I don’t think there NEEDS to be any evolutionary basis for why we choose our reference values. For instance, I can choose to do something because I held a particular belief which was derived from a logical proof rather than a genetic process. If I can select a particular action based on my beliefs derived from logic, then my behavior is entirely focused on an imaginary logical operation involving WORDS. In such a case, an observer cannot use the TCV to determine what is being controlled, because what is being controlled is a WORD. People think different words when they see the same thing, but when people see a circle, they all think of the same shape and the same mathematical constants. So if we instead restrict our discussion only to things like geometric shapes and things which we can perceive entirely thanks to genetically endowed perceptual input functions, then our logic becomes entirely constant and universal and there is no need to use words to explain how the universe works, but instead we draw shapes. The TCV then becomes used in a different way.

From what I understand, PCT can be used to solve very difficult math problems in very simple ways. What remains to be established is the way we reorganize math. Have you ever studied the development of pure math? What spawns mathematical revolutions? Math is essentially the curious emergence of repeatable results (i.e. controllable perceptions) in the absense of any reason except for the proofs we construct in particular logical systems. For instance, Carl Gauss and Everest Galois invented modular logic and Galois representation theory, respectively, which are now being used to prove (through what is known as the Langlands Program) that connections exist between different types of geometric representations of solutions to all sorts of classes of algebraic equations. Why do these connections exist? Nobody really knows, but any time we prove something, it is like a permanently controlled perception. You cannot disprove something already proven unless you reorganize the entire foundation of the math. So let me ask you now, what do you think is going to be the end of all this? Why are these people, who are doing this math, saying “I don’t care about the practical application of math, I do it for its own sake, because it is truth.” What is the purpose of a mathematicians behavior? Would you be able to run a TCV on it? In the absense of controllable results, the behavior of a mathematician would be impossible. Obviously, they have figured out a way to bring purpose to their behavior (a purpose composed quintessentially of controlled perceptions). Is there a hierarchy in pure math? PCT and pure math are the only two incorruptible powers in existence today, and they must have so much in common.

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

well I hope you won’t mind if I tell you that I didin’t understand all what you wrote. It’s your way of thinking and you have every right to have it. I aslo think that we turned from our »course of discussion«.

I think that it is important to understand that also scientist are people, some different kind of Live control systems with their own way of thinking and they are contributing to our welbeing as many others do. We should be big society of people cooperating instead of severe conflicting with each other. I see it like that.

Science is not just a term, but represent a huge amount of people who are thinking in specific way. So I think that your rights are equal to their rights. As human beings they have the same rights to have their way of thinking, as you have yours. And differences between LCS are evolutionry grounded. Differences between people are inborn, so the references for the organisms are geneticaly grounded. We just have to try to co-leave with whatever nature created.

So maybe mutual respect is nedded to different ways of thinking and tolerance in common life, which is quite short. Let us not behave in destructive way. I beleive that we should live in contributing constructive and positive thinking.

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 12:05 AM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Science does not create car and computer. Logic creates. Science and creation are not the same. Science is like looking at behavior as output, trying to show numbers and publish. Creation is not this. Life does not follow the same processes as science does, and science cannot define life without realizing the concept of perceptual control system organization. Survival of the fittest thinking is not good. It takes away focus from individual’s purpose and so we are only left with observable output of evolutionary processes. To ask why does some animal have the shape it has, and then to associate it with the behavior of other animals preying on it, then you ignore the fact that the shape of almost any animal contains the golden ratio. The golden ratio is found also in the solar system: in the distribution of rings of saturn, in the distance between the earth and moon and other planets, in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the organization of the pyramids on Mars (which are organized in a fibbonaci spiral as well as a star of david). It is no coincidence that we find these numbers in our solar system, for it is only in such a perfect system that we will exist. But our system is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and the Ones who built the megalithic structures understood this and so they built the megaliths to protect the earth and the solar system. The purpose of these structures was to receive as input the geometrical flow patterns of the system and protect these inputs from disturbance. The people who built these structures are the protectors of the earth. They do not utilize scientific definition, they have their own. But they are probably like us, perceptual controllers, and there is nothing which literally prevents us from being like them (except for conflict between psychology and PCT). And if its done, science will no longer be of service to us, just as it is no longer of service to the humans who created the face on mars. If you havent realized, humans are done evolving. You will most likely never find a more developed thing in the universe than a human being. A human body cannot evolve further, as already everything in the body follows the flows in the shape of the golden geometry. All our bones and the relations between them is Phi. All which is left is for our backwards scientific logic to reorganize around the intrinsic shapes and references of the system we live in.

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

well your answer is vague. In some parts you are answering my question in some you don’t. Conserning the first »package« of our problem I understood that you didn’t support your thesis that »Schumann resonance« provide Your thesis was categorical and exclusive :

PJY earlier :

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from

But I’m satisfied with your new answer. It’s much closer to what I beleive it happened. Of course we can’t know whether it did or not. But science try to come as much as close to what really happened in the past. Do you know for any other method that could come near to what »really« happened in the past ?

PJY :

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you. Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life…

HB :

Well I like your wording much more then that with which you come on CSGnet earlier. Anyway I think that you new »definition« of influences of Earth magnetism is much more acceptable. The emphasis is on :

»In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.«. So magnetism CAN SUPPORT the beggining of life among other processes, which are mostly scientifically defined. So you probably couldn’t avoid using science in »proving« what were the references for life.

As the other question is concerned whether you like science or not (that’s of course your privilige) my oppinion is that you are »one sided« observer of science. You are tryng to show it as »bad thing« in our nowadays sociseties. Did i understood you right ?

This discussion could go into inifnity. So to avoid »black and white coloring of science« I’ll ask you whether you are using car and computer ? Do you think that science is needed to make these technological devices and many others which you maybe use to make your life more comfortable ?

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 7:35 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

Boris,

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

I’m not trying to prove anything any more than a person steering a car is trying to “prove” the direction of the car, I’m trying to point you in a particular direction. I would like to see how Schumann resonance influences the origin and evolution of life just as badly as you. Maybe you could all look into it and give all of this stuff PCT has been working on for half a century a little breather.

Magnetism and magnetic orientation is a very important thing. Now, similar to this whole faulty linear causation thing we have going on in psychology, the same goes with electromagnetic technology. Magnetic phenomena support an analysis similar to the one being used by you perceptual control theorists. In other words, magnetism can support a phenomenon as complex as life.

I don’t know what’s going to happen to man in the future, but I think that if you fast-forward the time, you’re not going to see a futuristic society. You simply are not going to read in the paper " in the year 2025 , a scientist makes a breakthrough discovery which leads to bla bla bla and now there is peace on earth ". Have you ever heard of a guy named Edward Leedskalnin? Back in the 30s or 40s he built Coral Castle… Yea, well let’s just say he didn’t tell anybody exactly how he did it, so I don’t know exactly how his technology worked. But he built it alone. He did what billions of people claim to be impossible, and he did it alone. He is currently unrecognized for his scientific contributions. As far as I’m concerned, science can take a hike. Ed disproved the fundamental assumptions of physics by predicting and successfully making observations of celestial bodies which modern physics does not have the grounds to predict. He claimed his technology was based on the same fundamental concepts used to build ALL the megalithic structures on earth.

Now tell me this, Boris, do you think Ed used the scientific method to build his machines? Where would you see the logic of falsifiable hypothesis explicitly spelled out? It’s almost as if, in the same way as a perceptual control system just happens to automatically calculate inverse-kinetics without explicitly doing so, Ed automatically proved the most difficult problems of science could be solved by controlling a few perceptual variables. He did leave some hints, by the way. His technology is based on the intersection of geometry and prime numerology. And in the production of sound frequencies to generate forces by amplifying power.

Everything in the universe, matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the elements have been mapped to these geometries. In fact, the exact same geometric structures have been observed at all ranges of the observable universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of galactic superclusters. This, at least, I applaud scientists for. It took the collaboration of many individuals to gather this information. But at the end of the day, it’s just observation (not prediction). Additionally, this information does not need to be known to build the technology that Ed built. He certainly did not know all this stuff. Gathering this information and then trying to integrate it into our current technology, without having already built the futurine technology, is not only like taking the long path to get from one point to another, but rather like curving around the target point, doing spirals around it, and then trying to double back and hit the point with an inverted spiral which doesn’t intersect any of the curves we took while circling the point 8 times in the first place. It’s a joke. This is why I said that we are relying on accidentally discovered connections between geometry and physics. Whereas Ed Leedskalnin was doing it more on purpose. But we won’t get to where Ed got simply for the same reasons as inverse-kinematics won’t control an arm better than Bill’s model.

So not to burst anybody’s bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science in which everybody doesn’t know everything. Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human insect colony where everybody specializes because they need to for the colony to survive. You want to call yourselves by your title, call yourselves “human” and look to see what humans have accomplished in the universe and chase only after the achievements of immortals. That’s what Ed did. Who was Ed? A genius? He was a simple stone setter by trade. Then a lumberjack. Then an amusement park host. But he was a geometer. Humans are geometers. We measure geometries and we control our measurements. In my opinion, at the end of the day, when everything is done and figured out, this is why PCT would have truly shone. By forcing us to understand that WE control our measurements, and not the other way around.

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

I put my text under yours.

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:19 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

PJY :

What does it matter if I respect science?

HB :

I don’t understand how can you use something that you are spiting on, to prove your opinion about the source of references ?

Let me repeat some sentences you used to express your attitude to science :

  1.   I'm sick of these new age scientists trying to come up with stupid adjectival juxtapositions to describe something they hope exists.
    
  2.   In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic game called science,
    
  3.   If you haven't figured it out yet, scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream chasers running after a science which has gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of pure math.
    

I asked you if you are spitting on science, but you didn’t answer.

And now you are using science to prove your judgement about where references come from. Where is your phenomenology explanation ?

Did I get everything right ?

Best Boris

P.S. I’m still interested how Schumann Resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth or how the references come from Schumann Resonance ?

On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Philip,

If I understood right, your tip about Scumann is scientific explanation. So you do afterall respect science ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance? This is where references comes from.

HB :

I’m interested how Scumann resonance influenced the beggining of life on Earth ?

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Where do references come from (was Re: What’s in a name?)

10:00 - water memory

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Phil 6/26 11:04 am]

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

Phil:

Do you remember Schumann Resonance?

This is where references comes from.

Watch this movie if you have time:

RESONANCE ~ Beings Of Frequency Documentary Film

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.26.11.08]

On 2014/06/23 2:47 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:

MT :

The teleonomic purpose of reorganization is good control of perceptions important to survival, is it not?

HB :

I agree Martin. But how can you use this cognition in finding out where references are coming from ? And how can we use it in determining how …purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms derived from their evolutionary history… ?

I think a pointer toward a partial answer might be found in my postingsin a dialogue with Bruce Gregory dated Jan 14, 2011 15.46 and Jan 18, 2011, 15:20, to the “Pub and Grill->Theory->Language and Communication->Language and story” thread on ECACS. Here it is, slightly edited because it is extracted from a long thread, followed by my comments based on what I now think. Any serious discussion would have to go much further, but this sketch that might be useful.

===========
Jan 14

It is conceptually easy to develop levels of a hierarchic organization using the requirement that intrinsic variables be kept near their genetically determined reference levels, provided the environment is sufficiently complex. The resulting hierarchy is never uniform, but has many different peaks, like an alpine range. Only at the lower levels need the different “top-level” controlled perceptions have their input and output pathways interact. The system is inherently modular. Whether in our complex social environment a purely mechanistic development of a control structure would wind up with Bill’s intuitive 12 levels is anyone’s guess.

Jan 18
We started this thread with your I think some of our misunderstandings arise because of the way we think about language. I think you are correct that your question reveals a misunderstanding of what I meant by the alpine landscape…

… I was working with the concept of a strict hierarchy existing and being continually restructured within a single organism. …

My “landscape” is a structure organized under the rules for reorganization as I understand them. Reorganization happens all the time, at a very slow rate if all the intrinsic variables are close to their genetically determined reference levels, fast if not, and the rate of reorganization is fastest in parts of the perceptual control hierarchy where error levels are large and sustained or growing. Reorganization involves the making of new connections and new control units, the elimination of connections or of control units, and the variation of the parameter values of existing connections. New control units will be connected normally, meaning that they receive inputs to their perceptual functions from the perceptual signals of existing control units (or, rarely, from sensors), and connect their outputs to the reference inputs of existing control units (or rarely, to effectors such as muscles). This means that sometimes new control units will be “above” existing top-level units, sometimes existing top-level units will disappear, perhaps leaving those below them as newly “top”.

Here’s a sketch that may suggest what I mean. The left panel is an earlier stage, the right panel a later stage. Some internal connections have been dropped, and some new control systems built.
Reorganization growth

I believe, but can’t prove, that levels in such a hierarchy will automatically develop to mirror different kinds of consistencies within the environment that influence the organism’s precision of overall control. Different kinds of organism live with different perceptual environments. The other Great Apes, for example, live in a less complex social structure than we do, so they would be expected to develop flatter hierarchies. My suspicion is that (to the extent that a hierarchy represents any aspect of our actual control structure) the higher levels represent complex social perceptions, such as the “self-image-as-seen-by-others” complex we have discussed.

Anyway, I will argue that although a strict hierarchy is an unlikely structure to develop autonomously, nevertheless something very like a hierarchy is likely to exist as part of a more complicated perceptual control system in most animals.

================

[Note, in the diagram, horizontal connections don’t all mean the same thing. Interpret them so that they make sense. For example, in the left panel, the upper horizontal connection means that the right-hand top-level unit supplies a perceptual signal to the left-hand top-level unit. It couldn’t be an output from the left hand unit to the right hand one, because if it were, the right-hand one would not be a top-level unit. When the system has grown some more (right-hand panel), the corresponding line means the same thing, but now neither unit is at the top of its local structure.]

If this idea is anywhere close to the truth, then any new “top-level” units have nothing connected to their reference input. Bill’s top-level units always have this characteristic. As he often said, this is equivalent to having a permanent reference value of zero. But any unit not at the top level does have a reference input, and the value supplied by that input is derived from the outputs of connected members of the hierarchy at a higher level.


One question, related to the plausibility of the strict hierarchy itself, is what would happen to a new control unit that by chance happened to get connected so that it contributed its output signal to the reference input of a unit at a level higher than the level from which it gets its perceptual inputs. Would such a control unit necessarily be reorganized to fit the hierarchy, or could it hold its place? If the latter, then the whole control structure would soon lose any resemblance to a strict hierarchy and become a tangled web of connections. This seems to me to be a question amenable to simulation, though of course, the simulation would require the construction of an environment sufficiently complex to justify the development of a multi-level control structure, and that might not be a trivial task.

Maybe there is an analytic approach to the solution, similar to that used by Bill to show that reorganization of the output connections would be likely to eliminate level-jumping in an otherwise hierarchical structure. But Bill did not show that level-jumping would tend to be eliminated on the perceptual side, and the postulated aberrant control unit could be seen as simply a higher-level unit in which all its perceptual inputs had jumped levels (unless, of course, it received a reference input from a unit at or below the level to which it supplied reference values – creating an internal loop within the hierarchy. Could such an inner loop with self-stabilizing negative feedback be related to pathologies in which people persist in apparently pointless actions such as hand-washing?

Martin