crown@dukempd.UUCP (Rick Crownover) (03/19/88)
A few years back I read a book titles "Behavior as the Control of Perception" by an author named Powell or Powers. The book considered actions to be the result of incongruities between an inner paradigm and sensory input. I later heard that one of the 'therapy people': Glasser, had set out to ground his approach in neuroscience by demonstrating that Powells model accounted for the efficacy of his 'reality therapy.' As far as I know, the 'book' he was writing has never appeared? Anyone out there know more about this? Is this model widely accepted? Aloha, Rick -- Rick Crownover 1-919-684-8279 Duke University Dept. of Physics crown@dukempd.uucp Durham, N.C. 27706 mcnc!duke!dukempd!crown
vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) (03/20/88)
In article <626@dukempd.UUCP> crown@dukempd.UUCP (Rick Crownover) writes: > > A few years back I read a book titles "Behavior as the Control of >Perception" by an author named Powell or Powers. The author is William T. Powers, title: _Behavior: the Control of Perception_. Powers is a somewhat-well-known Cybernetician/Systems Scientist, and an "avante-garde" psychologist. Another title of his is _Control Theory, Constructivism, and Autopeisis_. >The book considered actions >to be the result of incongruities between an inner paradigm and sensory input. He takes a "constructivist" (read: sollipsistic) philosophical position, that we "create reality as we go along." This philosophy is very popular with cognitivists and cyberneticians, but to my mind is anti-realistic. On this view, the interaction between input (perception, stimulus) and existing mental structures is more important than that between input and output (action, behavior). That is, as we act as agents in the world, we go about modifying our view of the world (our reality) to the extent that the only purpose of our actions is to bring about states of "happiness" for that very reality. Thus, when I kick the dog, I'm not doing so to hurt the dog, but rather to produce a *perception* (i.e. a hurt dog) that is desirable vis a vis my current state of belief. Should the kick fail to produce the desired result, I don't change my action, but rather change my view of the world (i.e. the belief that kicking dogs produces hurt dog perceptions). In this way behavior controls perception. The truth is, of course (semi-:-)) that behavior and perception control each other, in a "circular" (or "recursive") cybernetic (and for humans, semantic) process. However, Powers' observations are positive in that they deomnstrate that there is an alternative view to the "standard" psychology (behaviorist) paradigm of regarding organisms as inert entities which simply "react" to stimulation (perception controlling behavior). If you're more interested, I could give you some quotations from some articles of his I have. >I later heard that one of the 'therapy people': Glasser, had set out to ground >his approach in neuroscience by demonstrating that Powells model accounted for >the efficacy of his 'reality therapy.' As far as I know, the 'book' he was >writing has never appeared? I've heard the name Glasser, but don't know anything more. I'd be very interested in more information. What's a "therapy person"? > Rick Crownover 1-919-684-8279 > Duke University Dept. of Physics crown@dukempd.uucp > Durham, N.C. 27706 mcnc!duke!dukempd!crown O----------------------------------------------------------------------> | Cliff Joslyn, Professional Cybernetician | Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, New York, but my opinions | vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .
todd@uhccux.UUCP (The Perplexed Wiz) (03/22/88)
In article <969@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) writes: >He takes a "constructivist" (read: sollipsistic) philosophical position, >that we "create reality as we go along." This philosophy is very popular >with cognitivists and cyberneticians, but to my mind is anti-realistic. >On this view, the interaction between input (perception, stimulus) and >existing mental structures is more important than that between input and >output (action, behavior). That is, as we act as agents in the world, >we go about modifying our view of the world (our reality) to the extent >that the only purpose of our actions is to bring about states of >"happiness" for that very reality. I don't know what you mean by "happiness" but there is no need to bring into play such a factor to discuss the concept of human's modifying their perception of the world. Faced with ambiguous sensory information, the various cognitive processes attempt to deal with ambiguities as best as possible. Often this results in "errors" that we term illusions. Although we are most often given examples of visual illusions, there are illusions for other sensory modalities as well. One demonstration of how we impose structure on our external reality can be demonstrated by listening to a long taped loop of the word "at" repeated for a long period of time.. at-at-at-at-at-at-at After a while, you will start to hear other "words" like "bat", "cat", "mat" and even nonsense words like "zat." It is even possible to "control" what "words" you hear. An everyday example of how we create "reality" for ourselves is the filling-in process going on all the time to fill the gap left by the blind spot in each eye where the fibers on the retina collect at go to the brain. It is not the case that the other eye feeds the necessary information. You can test this by simply closing one eye and looking around the world. Unless, you suffer from some other abnormality, you should NOT see a dark hole where your blind spot is. Instead the visual world should appear full filled in. You can "see" your blind spot by holding your right index finger out perpendicular to your arm at arms length. While closing your left eye and fixating your eye on some straight ahead spot, move your finger from the periphery of your vision slowly from the side of your body to the area in front of your face. At some point as you move your finger toward the area in front of your face, your fingertip will appear to disappear. But, and this is the important part, there is no black whole where the tip of your finger should be. Instead, there is what you might call a synthesized representation of the world based on an interpolation of the information provided by other information nearby the blind spot. There are countless examples of how the human sensory system plays an active role in creating a representation of reality. We are not simply passive sensation gathering devices. We take in information and modify it based on past experience, current information, various physiological states, etc. ...todd -- Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii Faculty Development Program UUCP: {ihnp4,uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!todd ARPA: uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL BITNET: todd@uhccux INTERNET: todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/27/88)
Even now, 26 years later, I can still recommend "The Behavioral Basis of Perception" by James G Taylor (no relation), Yale UP 1962. The thesis is that ALL perception can be derived from the possibility of distinctive behavior to aspects of the stimulus set, and it is ONLY through these distinctions that anything is perceived. JG later accepted my proposal that the input could be the result of self-teaching in a connectionist net (The problem of stimulus structure in the behavioral theory of perception, M.M.Taylor, S. African J of Psychology, 3, 1973, 23-45), but his principles still seem largely valid. -- Martin Taylor ...uunet!dciem!mmt mmt@zorac.arpa Talk, n. To commit an indiscretion without temptation, from an impulse without purpose. (Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914?, The Devil's Dictionary)