[From Bill Powers (940811.0615 MDT)]
Paul George (940810.1500) --
I'm following your conversation about PCT research and acceptance at the
same time I'm working on a paper that compares the inverse-
kinematic/dynamic model of arm control with a PCT model. It seems to me
that our problem goes much deeper than that of merely gaining
acceptance.
There is something seriously wrong with a science that could accept the
idea that the brain achieves organized behavior by computing the joint
torques that will produce it. To do these computations, the brain
requires information about the masses and moments of inertia of the arm
segments, the properties of muscle contraction both static and dynamic,
the properties of nonlinear muscle springs, the variations in mechanical
advantage as the joint angles change, the physics of dynamic movements,
the trigonometry of spatial relationships, the location of targets in
visual space, and the initial state of the arm in terms of positions and
velocities relative to a possibly moving target. The brain is required
to do computations involving signs and cosines, multiplications and
additions and divisions and subtractions -- and to do all this in real
time with so much precision that after a double time integration, the
final result is the kind of pointing accuracy we observe in the real
system. The body is assumed to be as stable as a rock, the muscles to be
immune to fatigue, and the environment to be free of unpredictable
disturbances.
There is an air of dreamlike unreality about this model. It is assumed
that anything a mathematician can do with pencil and paper and symbols,
the brain can do with neural currents (without symbols). It is assumed
that all the knowledge that external observers have obtained in 300
years of studying the physics and geometry of the arm and environment is
available in real time to the neural computers, even those of a monkey
or a mouse. Just how this information becomes available is not even
considered.
So the question naturally comes to mind, "Why should PCT researchers be
interested in acceptance of PCT by people who could bring themselves to
believe in such models?" Just what would such people be accepting?
Another abstract mathematical scheme with no more justification than any
others they have believed in? Another form of magic? Another kind of
prediction that is true some of the time, for some systems, under some
conditions? Is there the slightest chance that they would grasp PCT and
use it as a real theory? Or would they just use it as another
"perspective" on nature, to be adopted or not at one's convenience?
PCT does not explain all behavior of all organisms, just as physics does
not explain all behavior of all matter. But the failures of explanation
are of a kind different from those found in psychology. They aren't
statistical; they are total. There are phenomena that we simply don't
understand, and we know we don't understand them. There is no point
pretending that we do understand, until we actually do. What psychology
is missing is a concept of this point of understanding where you are
simply backed into a corner, and no matter what alternatives you may
think of you are continually forced back to the same view. Everything
else is ruled out. If there is a better explanation, and one knows there
will always be a better one some day, it is simply not available now.
The trail, for now, ends here. When we reach such a point of
understanding there is no choice but to proceed as if it is true.
The kind of understanding that comes out of psychological theories is
the same kind one could obtain with an understandingness pill, like the
sense of godlike comprehension that some people seem to get from
cocaine. It is a decision to believe rather than to look further.
Psychological theorizing does not stop when there is no other place left
to go; it stops when an already weak sense of skepticism about one's own
ideas is completely suspended. So we have dozens of competing
"microtheories," all existing at once and all accepted as part of
psychology, and hardly a one destined to last more than five years.
Is this the field in which we aspire to gain acceptance?
ยทยทยท
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Bill P.