X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 11:38:05 PST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 11:38:05 PST
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Misc Replies

[From Rick Marken (921212.1100)]

Penni Sibum (921211)--

>i think this ``virtual synonymy'' is a rhetorical move of pct's that
>irritates people w/ a scientific bent (like me).

Rhetorical move or not, PCT definitiely does irritate people (especially
psychologists and cognitive scientists) with a scientific bent.

>  i find yr generalization to everything else, including the
>kinds of things implied by ``purpose,'' completely unwarranted.  so i
>wish you'd stick to making claims you can justify....

You could help us out enormously by pointing out the unwarranted things
implied by "purpose" that we generalize to in PCT. This would be
especially helpful coming from someone with a scientific bent. Once we
knew what we shouldn't say about purpose, then we might be able to stop
irritating those with a scientific bent -- and who wouldn't want to stop
doing that? ;-)

Bill Powers (921212.0300) --

>Might as well get the mail and write about it. What else can you
>do when you're awakened at such an hour to be told you have a new
>grandson (my daughter Barbara's second)?

Mazel tov.

>RE: Science and religion

>It will not be possible for science and religion to get together
>until both realize that neither is Revealed Truth, and that both
>are human ideas. Of course that is precisely what both sides have
>been rejecting since the start of science. One side points the
>finger at Nature, the other at God. Neither side, apparently,
>notices whose finger is doing the pointing.

I partly disagree with this. I think there are many scientists
(the good ones) who understand that their models are human ideas
and that "nature" -- the cauldron in which these ideas are tested --
is just their own perception. I think there are also religionists
who understand that religious models (myths) are human ideas
and that "spiritual experience" -- the cauldron in which these
ideas are tested -- is just their own perception (human experience).
I would venture to guess that there are far more scientists like
the above than there are religionists. And I would argue that the
reason for this is that implicit (or explicit) in most religions
is the idea that you MUST believe that these ideas are Revealed Truth
or else you , your people or the human race are in deep doo doo. I don't
think this latter assumption is part of science -- although I agree that
many scientists act AS THOUGH such an idea were part of the game; and
that is where science and religion become one -- as you say, when
their ideas (models, myths) are treated as revealed truth rather
than human invention -- invented for a PURPOSE (oops, I think I heard
a gasp from another person with a scientific bent).

[While reviewing this I saw Greg Williams post which basically said
exactly the same thing -- science at least pays lip service to the
idea that its ideas are not Revealed Truth while few religions do
this -- and, of course, I heartily agree with him (and, by implication,
with myself)]

Gary Cziko (921211.1544 GMT)

>Rick (Marken), do you remember how at the Indiana PA meeting in 1990 you
>were wondering how Ed Ford could say that we create our perceptual world?
>I believed you grabbed a chair and made comments about how you couldn't
>arbitrarily create or "uncreate" its perception.  Isn't Bill's comment
>directly related to this issue.--Gary

I didn't mean to say that perceptions are not "creations" of perceptual
functions in the nervous system. I was suggesting that one cannot
willfully and arbitrarily change the functions so that you see the world
in a different way. I think these functions can be (and are) changed by
reorganization --and this process may be willful sometimes; actually,
I can think of instances where it seems that it is. Learning to do
surgery, for example, might involve learning that what was perceived
as a diffuse mass of gunk is actually distinct sets of arteries and
nerves -- some of which should be cut, others not. So I'm prepared to
admit that I may have misspoke -- in part. Another thing I was thinking
of was the fact that you cannot arbitrarily change a perception and expect
to maintain control of the perceptual variable. I think of it in terms of
the spreadsheet model (of course). Suppose that system 1, level 2 is
controlling a perception p = x+ y (perceptions at this level are
just linear combinations of lower level perceptions). I think of an
arbitrary change as one in which the perception becomes something like
p = x-y. Now the perception, p, corresponds to a whole new function
of lower level experience; its as though the combination of sound
intensities that coresponded to the perception of a minor third now
sound like a major fifth. Besides the puzzling experiential result, such
an arbitrary change in a perceptual function would very likely lead to
conflict between control systems -- espectially if another system at
the same level of the hierarchy had already been controlling x-y. So
that is the phenomenon I was thinking of when I said one could not
arbitrarily change perceptions; I really meant that if we really could
will such changes (and maybe we can), doing so would (I think --from
my experience doing this with the model) be most likely to produce
control problems. Of course, if you already have a control problem
(conflict) then changing perception ("creating a new perception from
the same raw material") might be one reasonable possibility -- and I
think this is what does happen -- in therapy, education and everyday
problem solving; it's just one aspect of reorganization.

Best regards

Rick

     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6215 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU