who's on first

<Martin Taylor 940224>

Bob Clark (940223.10:30)
Rick Marken (940224.0830)

I am not acquainted with your "symbolic-logical hierarchy."

You refer to:

a process I have described as "contrast."

I am unfamiliar with this use of "contrast."

"Dreaming up special [homuncular] Entities
seems to have become a cottage industry on CSG-L, as evidenced by
the following interchange between Bob Clark (940223.10:30 EST ) and
Martin Taylor (940204 18:30 EST):


That idea parallels my notion that a symbolic-logical hierarchy
parallels the "classic" analogue hierarchy rather than being "above"
the analogue hierarchy as it is in the classic set of levels.


I am not acquainted with your "symbolic-logical hierarchy."

What was wrong with the idea that behavior is the control of

What is different between what I said and the idea that behaviour is the
control of perception?

Shouldn't we push that idea to the limit before dreaming up add ons?

What add-on? I agree that Bob has an add-on with the DME that is not
identified with the program level, but I fail to see where my placement
of the symbolic levels beside rather than above the analogue level is
an add-on.

In the standard hierarchy, there is a "category" level. I observed that
categories can apply to almost any analogue perception where the world
seems usually to have a logical exclusion, such as that a blue object is
not at the same time a red object. Using this observation, I proposed
that the category level, which is already an interface level between
analogue and symbolic control levels, should be conceived as being
connected simultaneously to all lower levels, rather than just to the
event (?) level. This places the symbolic levels beside rather than
above the analogue levels.

When I made this proposal, I accompanied it with a proposal for how the
category perception works. As Bill P. says, the distinguishing feature
of a level is that it has a different *kind* of perception than the
other levels. I proposed that the *kind* of perception involved in the
category level was analogous to the operation of a flip-flop, in that
the perception of one of a set of mutually exclusive categories actively
inhibited the possible perception of any of the others. You do not see
something as red WHILE you are seeing it as blue. A consequence of this
mechanism is that category perceptions should show hysteresis, a fact of
category perception that was discussed a year or 18 months ago, and
dismissed as just a description of a phenomenon. This mutually inhibitory
process is the process I identified with the concept of "contrast."

So, to answer Bob, "contrast" is the process by which "category perception"
is developed. The parallelism of the symbolic-logical hierarchy with
the analogue hierarchy does not depend on this process, but is conceptually
based on the observation that we can categorize analogue perceptions at
any level. There are no kinds of control system in the parallel version
of the hierarchy that are not in the classic version. Behaviour is the
control of ANY perception, whether it be analogue or symbolic. If there
is a homuncular entity in the parallel hierarchy, it must be in the
original BCP structure, too, and Rick has been more perspicuous than I,
since I have not found it.

To respond to, but not to answer, Rick: "Where's the add-on?"