Steady State Nature of Evolution, Learning, etc.
249
What has been said about learning in relation to evolution, can be said
in principle about perception in relation to learning. The similarity between
the two is, therefore, expected to result in a straight line plot in log-log
coordinates if we plot stimulus magnitude against psychological magnitude.
This is indeed the case as shown in one curve of Figure 2 labelled "perception", where we have selected apparent length as an example. The relationship expressed in the straight line implies that the sensation tp grows as a
power function of the stimulus magnitude C/J, or
(4)
where the constant, k, depends on the unit of measurement and the value
of the exponent, n, may vary from one sensory continuum to another [38].
The similarity between equations (1) and (3) is apparent again in equation
(4). The common characteristic of evolution, learning and perception is evidently their steady state nature expressed in these equations and their
corresponding graphic representations. It is LOCKER'S [28] merit to have
called attention to what he calls "inhibition reactions in higher systems"
when referring to the similarity of the WEBER-FECHNER Law, the kinetics
of enzyme inhibition and WILDER'S law of initial values.
Steady States of Hallucination and Dreaming - Illustrated
Geometrico Modo
Let us begin by illustrating the interrelationship between:
(1) invariant stimulus configuration (i.s.c.) -commonly called the "object"
in physical space - represented by the distance between two fixed points,
the foci of an ellipse;
(2) the amount of injormation, i.e. the reflection of the "object" in the
sensory space of the system, a function of the:
(3) matching response (m) in cerebral space, which in turn is a function
of the rate of change-i.e. state of excitation or tranquilization-of the
system.
Since we assume invariant stimulus configurations to be constant, information and matching response are interdependent parts of a steady
state; an increase in one must result in a decrease in the other and vice
versa.
Figure 3a depicts the relationship between (1), (2) and (3) during a state of
systemic equanimity while Figure 3b is an illustration of the psychoanaleptic
drug-induced excitation state, displaying the invariance of the "object" (i.s.c.),
and the experience of an increased data content 2 -or chronosystole-since
2 from the observer's point of view.
249
What has been said about learning in relation to evolution, can be said
in principle about perception in relation to learning. The similarity between
the two is, therefore, expected to result in a straight line plot in log-log
coordinates if we plot stimulus magnitude against psychological magnitude.
This is indeed the case as shown in one curve of Figure 2 labelled "perception", where we have selected apparent length as an example. The relationship expressed in the straight line implies that the sensation tp grows as a
power function of the stimulus magnitude C/J, or
(4)
where the constant, k, depends on the unit of measurement and the value
of the exponent, n, may vary from one sensory continuum to another [38].
The similarity between equations (1) and (3) is apparent again in equation
(4). The common characteristic of evolution, learning and perception is evidently their steady state nature expressed in these equations and their
corresponding graphic representations. It is LOCKER'S [28] merit to have
called attention to what he calls "inhibition reactions in higher systems"
when referring to the similarity of the WEBER-FECHNER Law, the kinetics
of enzyme inhibition and WILDER'S law of initial values.
Steady States of Hallucination and Dreaming - Illustrated
Geometrico Modo
Let us begin by illustrating the interrelationship between:
(1) invariant stimulus configuration (i.s.c.) -commonly called the "object"
in physical space - represented by the distance between two fixed points,
the foci of an ellipse;
(2) the amount of injormation, i.e. the reflection of the "object" in the
sensory space of the system, a function of the:
(3) matching response (m) in cerebral space, which in turn is a function
of the rate of change-i.e. state of excitation or tranquilization-of the
system.
Since we assume invariant stimulus configurations to be constant, information and matching response are interdependent parts of a steady
state; an increase in one must result in a decrease in the other and vice
versa.
Figure 3a depicts the relationship between (1), (2) and (3) during a state of
systemic equanimity while Figure 3b is an illustration of the psychoanaleptic
drug-induced excitation state, displaying the invariance of the "object" (i.s.c.),
and the experience of an increased data content 2 -or chronosystole-since
2 from the observer's point of view.