A simple demonstration

July 17 8:57 pm

E points to S’s left index finger and asks “On which letter does this finger rest on the keyboard?â€?. E then asks S to imagine typing a particular letter. Which prompt does S respond faster to?Â

Good one, Philip!

···

Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distanceâ€?
www.nickols.us

Hi Philip

I’m not sure I understand what aspect of the PCT model this is testing.

BestÂ

Rick

···

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Fred Nickols 07.18.2019.1145 ET

I’ll let Philip speak for himself but I will say why I said, “Good one, Philip.”

If you ask me to imagine typing Fred, I will quickly envision doing so, beginning with my left index finger. But if you ask me which letter my left index is on I have to think about that.

The time differential isn’t all that great but it is greater for thinking about which finger rests on which key than it is simply to imagine typing a word.

···

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Organizational Generalist & Solution Engineer

Distance Consulting LLC

“Assistance at A Distance”

I wish I could say more but I don’t know why the differential exists. I was hoping the pct crowd could beat it up. Some say it has to do with learning and others say it has to do with processing. We are looking for a way the pct model explains this experiment. Â

···

On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:47 AM, Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Fred Nickols 07.18.2019.1145 ET

I’ll let Philip speak for himself but I will say why I said, “Good one, Philip.”

If you ask me to imagine typing Fred, I will quickly envision doing so, beginning with my left index finger. But if you ask me which letter my left index is on I have to think about that.

The time differential isn’t all that great but it is greater for thinking about which finger rests on which key than it is simply to imagine typing a word.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Organizational Generalist & Solution Engineer

Distance Consulting LLC

“Assistance at A Distance”

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:51 AM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Hi Philip

I’m not sure I understand what aspect of the PCT model this is testing.

BestÂ

Rick

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:08 PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

July 17 8:57 pm

E points to S’s left index finger and asks “On which letter does this finger rest on the keyboard?â€?. E then asks S to imagine typing a particular letter. Which prompt does S respond faster to?Â


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Martin Taylor 2019.07.18.15.46]

I assume that the finger is presently resting on some keytop, and

the subject is asked to identify which letter is engraved on the
keytop. You are asking whether it is quicker to imagine lifting the
finger and seeing what the letter is than to imagine the finger
hitting the key “x” from some unspecified starting position. I guess
I am with Rick and would ask you what the question has to do with
PCT, since the more well-defined part of PCT deals mainly with what
happens in the control hierarchy and you are asking about what
happens in imagination. Powers did insert an “imagination loop” into
the hierarchy he imagined, one in each control unit, but its
properties are not well defined. Nor is the question well defined as
an experiment. What interval would E time in each phase of the
experiment? an interval between the start (end) of the question
statement and the start of S saying something such as “X”, or
“Imagined”? Or would you look for some distinctive neural events to
specify when the subject understands what is asked and when the
subject has imagined either the letter identity or the act of
typing? It’s a bit mysterious.
Martin

···

On 2019/07/18 12:08 AM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

pyeranos@ucla.edu

July 17 8:57 pm

      E points to S’s

left index finger and asks “On which letter does this finger
rest on the keyboard?�. E then asks S to
imagine typing a particular letter. Which prompt does S
respond faster to?Â

For the second part, I think what is meant is “E then asks S to type a particular letter on an imaginary keyboard”. Either that, or the instruction would have to be more explicit, such as "tell me which finger would move to type the letter ___?"Â

The difference in performance is that a touch typist orients hands to the keyboard kinesthetically and tactilely, without reference to the letters.

···

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:51 AM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Hi Philip

I’m not sure I understand what aspect of the PCT model this is testing.

BestÂ

Rick

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:08 PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

July 17 8:57 pm

E points to S’s left index finger and asks “On which letter does this finger rest on the keyboard?â€?. E then asks S to imagine typing a particular letter. Which prompt does S respond faster to?Â


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

My question is this: if you have indeed confirmed that it is quicker to type the letter than to identify the letter, how do you explain why? It need not be by using the PCT model. I understand your concern about the description of the experiment. The measurement of time would actually occur from S’s perspective (please refer to Fred’s post, in which he is making what we might call a subjective observation).

[Martin Taylor 2019.07.18.18.04]

I haven't. I don't understand the first part of the experiment. From

the explanation so far, I get that you are asked to imagine resting
your finger on, say, the “d” key, and then imagine figuring out what
key your finger is resting on. Obviously that’s not what you meant.
So perhaps you are asking the subject to imagine the identity of the
key third from the left on the middle row of letters. Is that it? Or
do you have some other way of specifying the key on which S is to
imagine resting the finger, without E identifying it by name.
Let’s suppose that my first problem is satisfactorily resolved. Then
I would ask about the subjective estimation of time intervals. I
don’t know whether this is true or false, but I wouldn’t be
surprised if the time spent working on a difficult problem might
feel shorter than half the time spent working out the solution to a
trivial problem. Maybe what you are actually asking is about S’s
perception of the difficulty of answering your two questions?
Martin

···

On 2019/07/18 5:44 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

pyeranos@ucla.edu

    My

question is this: if
you have indeed confirmed that it is quicker to type the letter
than to identify the letter,

    how

do you explain why? It
need not be by using the PCT model. I understand your concern
about the description of the experiment. The measurement of time
would actually occur from S’s perspective (please refer to
Fred’s post, in which he is making what we might call a
subjective observation).

The fingers are on the home keys. Could you say that one question is harder than the other?

···

On Thursday, July 18, 2019, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.07.18.18.04]

  On 2019/07/18 5:44 PM, PHILIP JERAIR > YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
    My

question is this: if
you have indeed confirmed that it is quicker to type the letter
than to identify the letter,

I haven't. I don't understand the first part of the experiment. From

the explanation so far, I get that you are asked to imagine resting
your finger on, say, the “d” key, and then imagine figuring out what
key your finger is resting on. Obviously that’s not what you meant.
So perhaps you are asking the subject to imagine the identity of the
key third from the left on the middle row of letters. Is that it? Or
do you have some other way of specifying the key on which S is to
imagine resting the finger, without E identifying it by name.

    how

do you explain why? It
need not be by using the PCT model. I understand your concern
about the description of the experiment. The measurement of time
would actually occur from S’s perspective (please refer to
Fred’s post, in which he is making what we might call a
subjective observation).

Let's suppose that my first problem is satisfactorily resolved. Then

I would ask about the subjective estimation of time intervals. I
don’t know whether this is true or false, but I wouldn’t be
surprised if the time spent working on a difficult problem might
feel shorter than half the time spent working out the solution to a
trivial problem. Maybe what you are actually asking is about S’s
perception of the difficulty of answering your two questions?

Martin

Philip,

I think as Fred that you made a good question about “behavior” of people and you send it to the right place. PCT should be able to answer. PCT is general theory which is explaining how organisms function and how they produce behavior. Your question is about that. Isn’t it ? And I think it was about time that members of CSGnet start producing questions, experiments, explanations which could confirm and make more clear whether PCT is right theory about organisms functioning and whether it explains behavior in the right way. We know from experiences that PCT is not yet understood well. So experiments of kind you presented should be more than welcome.

MT : I guess I am with Rick and would ask you what the question has to do with PCT, since the more well-defined part of PCT deals mainly with what happens in the control hierarchy and you are asking about what happens in imagination.

HB : I think that any question about human functioning has everything to do with PCT if we want to confirm PCT as general theory about how organisms function and behave. PCT as general theory has to be able to explain any behavior.

I guess that Martin is right, that PCT on this stage of understanding how human function is maybe not right place for your question Philip. It seems that you’ll have to wait 100 years and put the same question again and I’m sure that future PCT will be able to answer your question with no problem.

Martin is by my oppinion also right that PCT is dealing mostly with hierarchy because the “stone base” for PCT is “Design for a brain” (Ashby) who tryed to define all other features of human functioning. So it’s probably obvious that what left for Bill Powers is heirarchy which was not defined in Ashby’s book (1960). And Bill Powers did a great job upgrading Ashby although nothing is so good that it couldn’t be better.

MT : Powers did insert an “imagination loop” into the hierarchy he imagined, one in each control unit, but its properties are not well defined.

HB : The problems with understanding how organisms function and specially nervous system are by my oppinon mostly attached to not well defined model (diagram on p. 191 – B.CP, 2005). The model is quite a mistery as it doesn’t represent yet the whole picture of organisms functioning and so by my oppinion Rick, Martin, Bruce N. and so on will have problems with understanding your question and of course answering. I also think that there are 3 members (as far as I follow discussions on CSGnet) who would have less problems with explaining your question as they have a little different oppinion about diagram (p.191). They are by my oppinion Earling, Bob Hintz and Fred.

As I pointed out before diagram (p.191) is originating from Ashby’s “double feed-back” and his “diagram of immediate effects”. The basic mechanism for explaining internal structure of organism is good but execution was a little bit defective. It’s no wonder. They were pioneers of great work. Thank you W.R. Ashby, thank you W.T. Powers for your great contribution to human World treasury of knowledge.

If PCT diagram would be finnished than PCT wouldn’t have any problems answering your question. But considering how slow PCT advance (mostly becasue of Rick who is turning in the place) I doubt that we’ll live long enough to see how the whole diagram should look like. Speccially one statement from diagram is not encouraging :

Bill P : Is that enough to make them recognizeable ? Again, I don’t know. But let’s leave that question open until some sort of data comes our way to help us decide.

HB : That some sort of data can come to our way today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, next decade, next century etc.

Here is diagram which is coproduction of Bill and me (arrow part from “ouput function”) that I think should be upgraded.

Boris

···

From: PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 5:25 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A simple demonstration

The fingers are on the home keys. Could you say that one question is harder than the other?

On Thursday, July 18, 2019, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.07.18.18.04]

On 2019/07/18 5:44 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

My question is this: if you have indeed confirmed that it is quicker to type the letter than to identify the letter,

I haven’t. I don’t understand the first part of the experiment. From the explanation so far, I get that you are asked to imagine resting your finger on, say, the “d” key, and then imagine figuring out what key your finger is resting on. Obviously that’s not what you meant. So perhaps you are asking the subject to imagine the identity of the key third from the left on the middle row of letters. Is that it? Or do you have some other way of specifying the key on which S is to imagine resting the finger, without E identifying it by name.

how do you explain why? It need not be by using the PCT model. I understand your concern about the description of the experiment. The measurement of time would actually occur from S’s perspective (please refer to Fred’s post, in which he is making what we might call a subjective observation).

Let’s suppose that my first problem is satisfactorily resolved. Then I would ask about the subjective estimation of time intervals. I don’t know whether this is true or false, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the time spent working on a difficult problem might feel shorter than half the time spent working out the solution to a trivial problem. Maybe what you are actually asking is about S’s perception of the difficulty of answering your two questions?

Martin

[Bruce Nevin 20190719.14:0 ET]

Yesterday, I said

The difference in performance is that a touch typist orients hands to the keyboard kinesthetically and tactilely, without reference to the letters.

Apparently I need to unpack this.

E points to S’s left index finger and asks “On which letter does this finger rest on the keyboard?â€?.

E then asks S to imagine typing a particular letter.

[later] The fingers are on the home keys.

You also have to assume that S is a competent touch typist.

In the first case, S has to imagine a higher-level reference signal from an intensity perception.

Normally, the appearance of the letter f on the screen would be controlled by means of lower-level controlled perceptions (joint angles, muscle tensions, …) cascading down through the hierarchy, with control of pressure of the index finger on a keypad at the bottom of the cascade of reference signals. You are asking S to imagine control at each of those levels, in reverse, back up the hierarchy to an imagined motivation for controlling the appearance of the letter f. I predict that what usually happens is that S eventually imagines typing some word beginning with f. I think the process involves evocation of memory associated with control at each level (fingertip pressure, muscle tensions, joint angles in that particular finger, …).

In the second case, the cascade of control from imagining the appearance of the letter f (or any other letter) to imagining the sensation of pressure on a fingertip is almost instantaneous for a practiced touch typist.

A familiar parallel, of sorts: S walks into a room and asks “Now, what did I walk in here for?” Awareness has shifted to control of a different variable (could be anything, a phone call, recollection of an unrelated unfinished task, imagining what the dog is barking about …), and the higher-level reference controlled by walking into that room is no longer in awareness. There is no particular memory connection from the purpose of the walk to the purpose by which S is distracted. (The two are not part of a controlled sequence unless S is disciplined enough to recognize the interruption and establish such a memory, analogous to a bookmark, or like an address in a pushdown store, to use a programming metaphor.) To recollect the reference S may have to return to where the walk started. In effect, you’re asking why the walk to get something takes longer when you forget what you went to get and have to reconstruct the purpose for the walk. Isn’t it obvious?

···

/Bruce

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:24 PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

The fingers are on the home keys. Could you say that one question is harder than the other?

On Thursday, July 18, 2019, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.07.18.18.04]

  On 2019/07/18 5:44 PM, PHILIP JERAIR > > YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
    My

question is this:Â if
you have indeed confirmed that it is quicker to type the letter
than to identify the letter,

I haven't. I don't understand the first part of the experiment. From

the explanation so far, I get that you are asked to imagine resting
your finger on, say, the “d” key, and then imagine figuring out what
key your finger is resting on. Obviously that’s not what you meant.
So perhaps you are asking the subject to imagine the identity of the
key third from the left on the middle row of letters. Is that it? Or
do you have some other way of specifying the key on which S is to
imagine resting the finger, without E identifying it by name.

    how

do you explain why? Â It
need not be by using the PCT model. I understand your concern
about the description of the experiment. The measurement of time
would actually occur from S’s perspective (please refer to
Fred’s post, in which he is making what we might call a
subjective observation).Â

Let's suppose that my first problem is satisfactorily resolved. Then

I would ask about the subjective estimation of time intervals. I
don’t know whether this is true or false, but I wouldn’t be
surprised if the time spent working on a difficult problem might
feel shorter than half the time spent working out the solution to a
trivial problem. Maybe what you are actually asking is about S’s
perception of the difficulty of answering your two questions?

Martin

July 19, 2019 12:30pm

Bruce, that is a good answer. Could you please translate the following directly into the typing example’s terms?

In effect, you’re asking why the walk to get something takes longer when you forget what you went to get and have to reconstruct the purpose for the walk. Isn’t it obvious?

[Martin Taylor 2019.07.19.15.03]

···

Bruce seems to me to have a plausible
and possibly correct analysis of the situation.

  But allow me to add what I sent only to Philip that should have

been sent to CSGnet

  -----

  I suppose "home key" is a term that means something to you. It

doesn’t to me. When I type, my fingers go to the keys most easily
available. No key is preferred, except that I tend to use my right
hand more on the right side of the keyboard and my left more on
the left side. But which key is hit with which finger depends
largely on what the previous (and I suppose following) text
context happens to be. Observing myself as I type this, I think I
use my index and middle fingers more than the others. I guess you
don’t.

  Martin
      [Bruce Nevin

20190719.14:0 ET]

      Yesterday, I

said

        BN> The

difference in performance is that a touch typist orients
hands to the keyboard kinesthetically and tactilely, without
reference to the letters.

      Apparently I need to unpack this.
        PJY> E

points to S’s left index finger and asks “On which letter
does this finger rest on the keyboard?�.

        PJY> E

then asks S to imagine typing a particular letter.

        PJY>

[later] The fingers are on the home keys.

      You also have to assume that S is a competent touch typist.



      In the first case, S has to imagine a higher-level reference

signal from an intensity perception.

      Normally, the appearance of the letter f on the screen would

be controlled by means of lower-level controlled perceptions
(joint angles, muscle tensions, …) cascading down through
the hierarchy, with control of pressure of the index finger on
a keypad at the bottom of the cascade of reference signals.
You are asking S to imagine control at each of those levels,
in reverse, back up the hierarchy to an imagined motivation
for controlling the appearance of the letter f. I predict that
what usually happens is that S eventually imagines typing some
word beginning with f. I think the process involves evocation
of memory associated with control at each level (fingertip
pressure, muscle tensions, joint angles in that particular
finger, …).

      In the second case, the cascade of control from imagining the

appearance of the letter f (or any other letter) to imagining
the sensation of pressure on a fingertip is almost
instantaneous for a practiced touch typist.

      A familiar parallel, of sorts: S walks into a room and asks

“Now, what did I walk in here for?” Awareness has shifted to
control of a different variable (could be anything, a phone
call, recollection of an unrelated unfinished task, imagining
what the dog is barking about …), and the higher-level
reference controlled by walking into that room is no longer in
awareness. There is no particular memory connection from the
purpose of the walk to the purpose by which S is distracted.
(The two are not part of a controlled sequence unless S is
disciplined enough to recognize the interruption and establish
such a memory, analogous to a bookmark, or like an address in
a pushdown store, to use a programming metaphor.) To recollect
the reference S may have to return to where the walk started.
In effect, you’re asking why the walk to get something takes
longer when you forget what you went to get and have to
reconstruct the purpose for the walk. Isn’t it obvious?

/Bruce

      On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:24

PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:

      The

fingers are on the home keys. Could you say that one question
is harder than the other?

      On Thursday, July 18, 2019, Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu          >

wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.07.18.18.04]

On 2019/07/18 5:44 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

              My

question is this:Â if
you have indeed confirmed that it is quicker to type
the letter than to identify the letter,

          I haven't. I don't understand the first part of the

experiment. From the explanation so far, I get that you
are asked to imagine resting your finger on, say, the “d”
key, and then imagine figuring out what key your finger is
resting on. Obviously that’s not what you meant. So
perhaps you are asking the subject to imagine the identity
of the key third from the left on the middle row of
letters. Is that it? Or do you have some other way of
specifying the key on which S is to imagine resting the
finger, without E identifying it by name.

              how

do you explain why? Â It
need not be by using the PCT model. I understand your
concern about the description of the experiment. The
measurement of time would actually occur from S’s
perspective (please refer to Fred’s post, in which he
is making what we might call a subjective
observation).Â

          Let's suppose that my first problem is satisfactorily

resolved. Then I would ask about the subjective estimation
of time intervals. I don’t know whether this is true or
false, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the time spent
working on a difficult problem might feel shorter than
half the time spent working out the solution to a trivial
problem. Maybe what you are actually asking is about S’s
perception of the difficulty of answering your two
questions?

          Martin

It’s an analogy (identified as such). Analogies by definition do not “translate directly”. What the two have in common is the process of reconstructing a reference signal–a purpose for the walk, a word or other perception to control which you must press the key that E asked you to press.

···

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:34 PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

July 19, 2019 12:30pm

Bruce, that is a good answer. Could you please translate the following directly into the typing example’s terms?

In effect, you’re asking why the walk to get something takes longer when you forget what you went to get and have to reconstruct the purpose for the walk. Isn’t it obvious?

I call it the neutral position. I don’t know if there is a standard term for it. Computer keyboards are made with a little bump on the f key and the j key so that your forefingers can find them tactilely, whereupon your other fingers are also easily aligned on their respective ‘home’ keys on the same asdfghjkl;’ row.

···

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 5:03 PM Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.07.19.15.03]

  Bruce seems to me to have a plausible

and possibly correct analysis of the situation.

  But allow me to add what I sent only to Philip that should have

been sent to CSGnet

  -----

  I suppose "home key" is a term that means something to you. It

doesn’t to me. When I type, my fingers go to the keys most easily
available. No key is preferred, except that I tend to use my right
hand more on the right side of the keyboard and my left more on
the left side. But which key is hit with which finger depends
largely on what the previous (and I suppose following) text
context happens to be. Observing myself as I type this, I think I
use my index and middle fingers more than the others. I guess you
don’t.

  Martin
      [Bruce Nevin

20190719.14:0 ET]

      Yesterday, I

said

        > The

difference in performance is that a touch typist orients
hands to the keyboard kinesthetically and tactilely, without
reference to the letters.

      Apparently I need to unpack this.
        > E

points to S’s left index finger and asks “On which letter
does this finger rest on the keyboard?�.

        > E

then asks S to imagine typing a particular letter.

        >

[later] The fingers are on the home keys.

      You also have to assume that S is a competent touch typist.



      In the first case, S has to imagine a higher-level reference

signal from an intensity perception.

      Normally, the appearance of the letter f on the screen would

be controlled by means of lower-level controlled perceptions
(joint angles, muscle tensions, …) cascading down through
the hierarchy, with control of pressure of the index finger on
a keypad at the bottom of the cascade of reference signals.
You are asking S to imagine control at each of those levels,
in reverse, back up the hierarchy to an imagined motivation
for controlling the appearance of the letter f. I predict that
what usually happens is that S eventually imagines typing some
word beginning with f. I think the process involves evocation
of memory associated with control at each level (fingertip
pressure, muscle tensions, joint angles in that particular
finger, …).

      In the second case, the cascade of control from imagining the

appearance of the letter f (or any other letter) to imagining
the sensation of pressure on a fingertip is almost
instantaneous for a practiced touch typist.

      A familiar parallel, of sorts: S walks into a room and asks

“Now, what did I walk in here for?” Awareness has shifted to
control of a different variable (could be anything, a phone
call, recollection of an unrelated unfinished task, imagining
what the dog is barking about …), and the higher-level
reference controlled by walking into that room is no longer in
awareness. There is no particular memory connection from the
purpose of the walk to the purpose by which S is distracted.
(The two are not part of a controlled sequence unless S is
disciplined enough to recognize the interruption and establish
such a memory, analogous to a bookmark, or like an address in
a pushdown store, to use a programming metaphor.) To recollect
the reference S may have to return to where the walk started.
In effect, you’re asking why the walk to get something takes
longer when you forget what you went to get and have to
reconstruct the purpose for the walk. Isn’t it obvious?

/Bruce

      On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:24 > > PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu          > > > wrote:
      The

fingers are on the home keys. Could you say that one question
is harder than the other?

      On Thursday, July 18, 2019, Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu          > > > > wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.07.18.18.04]

On 2019/07/18 5:44 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via > > > > csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

              My

question is this:Â if
you have indeed confirmed that it is quicker to type
the letter than to identify the letter,

          I haven't. I don't understand the first part of the

experiment. From the explanation so far, I get that you
are asked to imagine resting your finger on, say, the “d”
key, and then imagine figuring out what key your finger is
resting on. Obviously that’s not what you meant. So
perhaps you are asking the subject to imagine the identity
of the key third from the left on the middle row of
letters. Is that it? Or do you have some other way of
specifying the key on which S is to imagine resting the
finger, without E identifying it by name.

              how

do you explain why? Â It
need not be by using the PCT model. I understand your
concern about the description of the experiment. The
measurement of time would actually occur from S’s
perspective (please refer to Fred’s post, in which he
is making what we might call a subjective
observation).Â

          Let's suppose that my first problem is satisfactorily

resolved. Then I would ask about the subjective estimation
of time intervals. I don’t know whether this is true or
false, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the time spent
working on a difficult problem might feel shorter than
half the time spent working out the solution to a trivial
problem. Maybe what you are actually asking is about S’s
perception of the difficulty of answering your two
questions?

          Martin

July 20, 2019 12:46 am

You walk to get something but you forget what you’re walking to get and have to reconstruct the purpose for the walk. Is this open loop behavior?Â

···

When one process occurs faster than another, we might suppose that the slower process is a two level system. Perhaps this might be so for the typing example.Â

Case 1: You are asked what letter does the index finger lie on in the neutral position. You retrieve the letter f. This is the slower process, so we presume it has two levels. What is going on in the hierarchy? First, the index finger is perceived. To generate this perception, we use muscle memory (i.e. the level 1 system, the muscle, outputs a memory signal to the level 2 system via the imagination connection). After this perception is generated, you retrieve the letter at that position, the letter “fâ€?.Â

Case 2: After retrieving the letter f, you are then asked to imagine typing that letter. You do so immediately. This is the faster process, so we presume it has one level. What is going on in the hierarchy this time? The muscle, the level 1 system, simply outputs a force, nothing else.

As a demonstration of the second case, let’s do an experiment which artificially increases the error rate and see what happens. Type a sentence using only two fingers instead of all the usual fingers. Use your two index or middle fingers (alternate left and right with each successive letter). Keep your eyes on the screen and type VERY slowly. This will noticeable increase your error rate. You should notice that for some of your typos, your finger felt on target but the letter which appeared on the screen was wrong. In other words, if not for the visual display, the error would go unnoticed. Thus, the muscle is simply outputting a force and not much accurate information about finger position.Â

On Friday, July 19, 2019, Bruce Nevin csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

I call it the neutral position. I don’t know if there is a standard term for it. Computer keyboards are made with a little bump on the f key and the j key so that your forefingers can find them tactilely, whereupon your other fingers are also easily aligned on their respective ‘home’ keys on the same asdfghjkl;’ row.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 5:03 PM Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.07.19.15.03]

  Bruce seems to me to have a plausible

and possibly correct analysis of the situation.

  But allow me to add what I sent only to Philip that should have

been sent to CSGnet

  -----

  I suppose "home key" is a term that means something to you. It

doesn’t to me. When I type, my fingers go to the keys most easily
available. No key is preferred, except that I tend to use my right
hand more on the right side of the keyboard and my left more on
the left side. But which key is hit with which finger depends
largely on what the previous (and I suppose following) text
context happens to be. Observing myself as I type this, I think I
use my index and middle fingers more than the others. I guess you
don’t.

  Martin
      [Bruce Nevin

20190719.14:0 ET]

      Yesterday, I

said

        > The

difference in performance is that a touch typist orients
hands to the keyboard kinesthetically and tactilely, without
reference to the letters.

      Apparently I need to unpack this.
        > E

points to S’s left index finger and asks “On which letter
does this finger rest on the keyboard?�.

        > E

then asks S to imagine typing a particular letter.

        >

[later] The fingers are on the home keys.

      You also have to assume that S is a competent touch typist.



      In the first case, S has to imagine a higher-level reference

signal from an intensity perception.

      Normally, the appearance of the letter f on the screen would

be controlled by means of lower-level controlled perceptions
(joint angles, muscle tensions, …) cascading down through
the hierarchy, with control of pressure of the index finger on
a keypad at the bottom of the cascade of reference signals.
You are asking S to imagine control at each of those levels,
in reverse, back up the hierarchy to an imagined motivation
for controlling the appearance of the letter f. I predict that
what usually happens is that S eventually imagines typing some
word beginning with f. I think the process involves evocation
of memory associated with control at each level (fingertip
pressure, muscle tensions, joint angles in that particular
finger, …).

      In the second case, the cascade of control from imagining the

appearance of the letter f (or any other letter) to imagining
the sensation of pressure on a fingertip is almost
instantaneous for a practiced touch typist.

      A familiar parallel, of sorts: S walks into a room and asks

“Now, what did I walk in here for?” Awareness has shifted to
control of a different variable (could be anything, a phone
call, recollection of an unrelated unfinished task, imagining
what the dog is barking about …), and the higher-level
reference controlled by walking into that room is no longer in
awareness. There is no particular memory connection from the
purpose of the walk to the purpose by which S is distracted.
(The two are not part of a controlled sequence unless S is
disciplined enough to recognize the interruption and establish
such a memory, analogous to a bookmark, or like an address in
a pushdown store, to use a programming metaphor.) To recollect
the reference S may have to return to where the walk started.
In effect, you’re asking why the walk to get something takes
longer when you forget what you went to get and have to
reconstruct the purpose for the walk. Isn’t it obvious?

/Bruce

      On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:24 > > > PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu          > > > > wrote:
      The

fingers are on the home keys. Could you say that one question
is harder than the other?

      On Thursday, July 18, 2019, Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu          > > > > > wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2019.07.18.18.04]

On 2019/07/18 5:44 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via > > > > > csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

              My

question is this:Â if
you have indeed confirmed that it is quicker to type
the letter than to identify the letter,

          I haven't. I don't understand the first part of the

experiment. From the explanation so far, I get that you
are asked to imagine resting your finger on, say, the “d”
key, and then imagine figuring out what key your finger is
resting on. Obviously that’s not what you meant. So
perhaps you are asking the subject to imagine the identity
of the key third from the left on the middle row of
letters. Is that it? Or do you have some other way of
specifying the key on which S is to imagine resting the
finger, without E identifying it by name.

              how

do you explain why? Â It
need not be by using the PCT model. I understand your
concern about the description of the experiment. The
measurement of time would actually occur from S’s
perspective (please refer to Fred’s post, in which he
is making what we might call a subjective
observation).Â

          Let's suppose that my first problem is satisfactorily

resolved. Then I would ask about the subjective estimation
of time intervals. I don’t know whether this is true or
false, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the time spent
working on a difficult problem might feel shorter than
half the time spent working out the solution to a trivial
problem. Maybe what you are actually asking is about S’s
perception of the difficulty of answering your two
questions?

          Martin