That would explain the interaction with the guys you meet ouside the bar at closing time.
Not only at closing time but most other times as well. We seem to devoling back to the good old days.
C ya m8. E off to c soc
In regards to learning parameters within the homeostasis model, there are two sub-sets;
1: The ability to learn new skills
2: The ability to successfully execute existing skills.
The first runs out well before the second but both are within the model.
Thoughts?
Are they really that different though? A skill is never able to be practiced in all of the situations it can be used, so the use of a skill in an unpracticed situation is similar to learning a new skill. It really comes down to what is defined as a skill and what is defined as a “new” skill.
About term ‘Dynamic stereotype’…
Originally the term dynamic stereotype was introduced by I. P. Pavlov in his study of higher nervous activity.
‘To have a correct relationships between organism and an external conditions it is necessary not only to create temporary links (maybe it’s called associative chanes in English) but to correct these links quickly according to changing environmental conditions’ (I. P. Pavlov).
Stability, permanence and at the same time variability of the higher nervous activity is one its main features.
That’s why Pavlov introduced the term dynamic stereotype - from one side we see the system that always tends to be stereotyped, stable; but from the other side it is highly dynamic, always responding to external changes. That’s why Dynamic Stereotype is ‘organized, well balanced system of internal processes’ (I. P. Pavlov).
Sport motor skill is ‘a complex conditioned reflex, formed according to laws of higher nervous activity’ (A. N. Krestovnikov).
More differrent motor skills the athlete has, it’s easier for him to learn new or mor complex skills
That’s my point- what is in place vs what is being introduced
abo,
to be honest with you I think that Bernstains ideas are “better” than those of Pavlovs! It is sad that we don’t learn about Bernstains ideas more… Bernstain don’t get enough credit he deserve!! I think that motor skill is more than a “complex conditioned reflex”… anyway Pavlov based his approach on dog experiments, while Bernstain based his approach on humans!!!
Charlie,
I would say that skill acquisition depend of the following factors:
- Level of underlying abilties (both general and specific)
- Coordination level
- Motor skills ammount previously learned (long transfer, GPP)
- Learning ability (as a subgroup of coordination)
- Practice orgaization (perfect practice makes perfect)
- Motivation
- Goals settings
- Reinforcement
- Feedback
Quark,
I agree with you on this!
Is free-shot at basket from various positions considered as “different” skill, or just the different expression of the same skill? I would say same skill with different “response programming” process!
I would really suggest reading “Motor Learning & Performance” from Schmidt! Phenomenal book!
duxx,
fully agry with you about Bernstein’s theory, my point was just interpretation of the term
Duxx, yet another reference point for you to consider if it has any validity to your model! Bruce Lipton, a biologist, is writing some intriguing stuff about cells and proteins and how perception appears to control gene-behaviour via proteins that respond to different “environmental” signals (e.g. electromagnetic charges that changes protein shape and thus protein-motion… activation/deactivation of genes etc.).
Regarding the notion of homeostasis, as a systemic concept… Lipton is making a note that cells respond to perception by activating either growth or protection behaviour programmes. Perhaps this is coherent with the larger systemic notion of ‘homeostasis’ and its regulation?
Thanks Lorien! Do you have any link or should I hit the “google”?
http://www.brucelipton.com/ should be a good place to start. I know he has some books too. However, there seems to be a scent of New Age in his approach, and many are using his explanations to enhance their own point of view; the power of the mind, bla bla bla… but the specific science should be OK, I think (at least his references sound valid).
How is the “Perception” of Cells regulated? When is the pathway to growth open (therefore protection behaviour closed) and what are the conditions that create this state? Relate this to the CNS fatigue discussion.
Lorien,
I have read couple of articles on the site, naimly: Conscious Parenting, Mind Over Genes, and I am just reading Cellular Consciousness.
I must say that Lipton’s phylosophy is very, very simmilar to mine, they are maybe the same. Thanks for pointing me this scientist Lorien!
Anyway, other books that have influenced my “point of view” at Life are:
- Anthony de Mello “Awekenning”
- Scott Peck “Road Less traveled” and “People Lie”
- Joseph Murphy “Power of subconciousness” (or something like that)
- And the BIBLE called: Conversations with God! I don’t know the autor at the moment. But this is very good book
- Also, Maxwell Moltz “Psychocybernetics” is pretty good read
- Roger Penroze “Emperor’s new mind” on mathematical/physical discussion regarding free will, determinism, artifical inteligence etc
As I have pointed out many times, I am proponent of dualism: free will and material determinism. I know that 99% of human behaviour is determined by subconsciousness, but I belive that we can allways change ourself…
I have wrote one article outlining my approach to this problem(s), I will have it translkated in due course.
altought this have nothing to do directly with HPM, it has its value in explaining RPE and free will, purpose etc.
If you believe you are successful, you are going to be! This is very important aspect of training and performing.
Look at the expanded graph on page 1: I separated conciousness part and subconsciousness part of control.
Thanks for letting me know of Lipton’s work!
According to Lipton, Integral Membrane Proteins (IMPs) appears to have two distinct classes: 1) receptors; 2) effectors. Each receptor-effector protein complex collectively constitutes a “unit of perception”. I believe Lipton’s case is, that receptors not only react to matter (molecular signals) but also to energy signals. He also stipulates that bacteria plays a role in how/when appropriate behaviour programs are selected.
To make it even more complicated, according to Lipton, despite amino acids being determinants for a particular protein’s sculpture’s pattern, the final shape of that pattern is controlled by electromagnetic charges along the protein chain. A particular protein sculpture is referred to as its “conformation” in reference to the shape of environmental molecules (including other proteins). When proteins couple with other molecules, a “charge” is created, hence will change the shape of the protein – a protein creates motion when it changes; motion is creating energy that again changes the protein’s shape… to find “conformation” in the changed environment…etc.
I guess the CNS plays a role in making the environment favourable for growth by amplifying electromagnetic energy in a particular subsystem. Yet, when proteins run out of “favourable” molecules to couple with (despite electric stimulation), then, they must “conform” to structures that are favourable to protection (which is “noticed” by IMP receptors). Protection sets in and will eventually affect the magnitude of CNS-output in that area (through a higher systemic level; perhaps the brain). A recharge is possible when CNS stimulus is reduced so that the cell-environment has time to change towards a favourable to growth environment again. I guess a “protective program” needs less CNS stimulation (energy) than a “growth program”
To put it simply: if we don’t reduce CNS stimulus/stress voluntary by resting, the body will! Of course, nerve cells (CNS) are subjugated to the same process, so there’s really a kind of “double protection” involved here. The first level of protection appears to be ‘no improvement’ in a particular subsystem, and the second level of protection is ‘complete shutdown’ of the whole system. I guess we must look at the CNS as a distributor of energy to other units as well as one unity in its own right (nerve cells). Low intensity training does not jeopardise CNS-integrity itself, although CNS-output there might be affected through protection. High intensity training will, of course, stress the messenger itself, and thus affect the whole system.
If I understand this correctly, then, there’s 20 amino acids (that we know of) that creates the ~100,000 proteins found in the human body. From 20 molecules we get over 100,000 different protein chains, which should mean that there must be some kind of ‘regulator’ and ‘blueprint’ that “saves” us from “randomization”. However, and what I believe is Lipton’s case, is that the ‘blueprint’ (DNA blueprint for each protein = gene) cannot, by first order, be responsible for such “distribution”, since genes cannot turn themselves on or off – hence the primacy of the environment (not the primacy of the gene).
(The text above is almost directly taken from Lipton’s writings, not my own in any way)
Duxx,
You’re welcome… I guess that’s what this board is all about; exchange of ideas, opinions and others opinions. I guess the “hot” book at the moment (Bruce Lipton) is “The Biology of Belief” (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0975991477/102-3523704-7342540?v=glance&n=283155). I have not read it, but I have a nine-page brief introduction to it (.pdf).
I have only read “The New Pyscho Cyberenetics” from your list, and I kind of liked it too.
About dualism… I think my point of view is perhaps driven even further; hence I do not need a separation of mind and matter (or free will vs. material determinism). It might sound foolish, but to me, ‘matter’ is not necessarily different from free will; matter appears to be the result of our perceptions (instruments)… but if we consider matter as vibrations of energy, then the difference might become much more blurred, especially if we accept quantum theory where each and every “particle” (vibration of energy) appears to be in constant information exchange with each other. Then the universe appears to be a collection of an infinite amount of “symphonies” wherein the possibility of a consciousness is created through such interaction.
Of course, day to day life requires a pragmatic stance; meaning ‘matter’ as something very real, otherwise we could not function in this world. I’m still trying to avoid being hit by a car and I still trust in proven medicine… etc. Although, I realize that these are more or less arbitrary distinctions from a metaphysical perspective. Nothing really ‘is’… everything just appears to be something according to our perception… no universal “is-ness”.
Great explanation! Thanks lorien!!! This is the thing that bothered me for a while, because CNS fatigue is also “showed” in long distance running too, due protection (decrease of CNS output) to glycogen, temperature etc. And this is considered rather a control protective mechanism. — First level of protection
In high intensity activity, there may be the actual fatigue (impairment) of nerve cells rather than protective mechanism of CNS, and maybe both! — Second level of protection
Once again, great explanation lorien! Thanks for contribution!
Lorien,
I know on what you are aiming at with your last post, aslo, I believ that the “line” between matter and space is hardly created… To explain myslef dualism of light, I “visualized” a concentration of space (rather than individual particle) oscilating in 4 dimensions. :eek: Looks pretty crazy, but it can explain some things. Also, Maxwell in physics, expanded the issue of fields in physics from simple calculations-help to a “existing” phenomena…
I would highly suggest looking at Emperor’s New Mind from Roger Penrose! Trust me on this book!
I don’t know if you are familiar with a Chinesse Box problem… but it basically states that if you put me into a box, and under a door passess me some data on chinesse, and according to a given algorhythm (if-then) I wrote on Chinesse (btw I don’t know chinesse)and pass under a door, I may actually appear that I understand what you are asking me, without being consious about it!!! The reason for writing this is that consciousness-perception per se cannot be created by input-output relations, or sensor-effector behaviour. Altought it may seem that individual cell “feels” due action-reaction behaviour it is not CONSCIOUSNESS! So, no matter how complex the algorhythm it cannot “born” COUNCIOUSNESS or FREE WILL! These two are properties of something that is not material, something that is not a result of material-oscilations-energy interaction, something highly spiritual…
Got to the nearest library and get:
Eperor’s New Mind - Roger Penrose
Conversations with God 1, 2 & 3 (I have read first one) - Dont know author at the moment.
I plan getting Biology of belief book…
P.S.
I am starting translations of my article at the moment
Yey algorithms! I just had to comment on this :). The box problem is also described as the Turing test. The issue with input/output can also be reduced in some way to how one interprets Godel’s (umlauts on o) theorem. If you believe that a “soul” exists, then machines are limited as by formal languages, (while human’s are not). The converse is that the human mind is also a formal system, and thus limited. Personally, I tend to follow Occam’s razor with AI and assume that i don’t have enough data to support evidence of duality.
The real issue of the limitations of the ability to sense “counsciousness” is that we exist in an “input-output” relationship with the world (with noise added of course). All of our sensors have finite resolution and bandwidth. If you take that into account it is impossible to determine if the behavior something exhibits is “living”. Ah the joys of determining casuality… 
BTW, i will look into those books, they sound interesting. (Have to finish a few others first, my booklist is becoming huge )
Aah, John Searle! I’m somewhat familiar with the problem, although I’m unsure about how it will affect the proposition of a consciousness born through infinite creation and exchange of information. The problem seems to be relevant only when there’s a preconceived initiative to treat information flow as subjugated to the notion of algorithms. Consequently, underneath such predilection appears to be the proposition of strict determinism. However, with quantum theory we only achieve probabilities – not certainties. We must not confuse consistency with the truth (as Timothy Leary said). ‘Input’ and ‘Output’ seems to be happening at the same time… all the time!
If there’s no certainty of an action/reaction (only mathematically high consistency), then there’s no specific algorithm in terms of truth either. I never said that the universe is subjugated to the view of input-output… it’s infinite, thus not necessarily deterministic as a whole. It is only deterministic in the way we explain it (in order to make sense of it).
I guess we’re reaching the same conclusion through different roads. I don’t think we’re far apart at the end.
I will look into those books… aah, so many books, so little time… and everything seems to move in circles anyhow!
If there’s no certainty of an action/reaction (only mathematically high consistency), then there’s no specific algorithm in terms of truth either. I never said that the universe is subjugated to the view of input-output… it’s infinite, thus not necessarily deterministic as a whole. It is only deterministic in the way we explain it (in order to make sense of it).
Dear Lorien ,
Uncertainity is called Chaos Theory, but that doesn’t mean that things are random, but rather they are way to complex and way to sensitive to small changes in the input… In short they are still deterministic but very hard to calculate…
I read something about someguy paradox, when you want to calculate position of the electron you can’t calculate speed and vice versa… I maybe believe that FREE WILL have enough power to change things on the microlevel, so when researcher WANTS to measure something (on that micro level), or wants that electron be somewhere, it is going to be like that…
Returning to chaos theory… if the FREE WILL (some sort of spiritual energy etc) is able to create such a small energy for a small action in micro-nano-pico level, it can create great results on makro level (butterfly effect).