[From Rupert Young (981214.1415 UT)]
This Psycoloquy article http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.41 may
be of interest to PCTer's. Here's a particularly pertinent quote.
"Perception is not a linear process proceeding from the stimulus to the
percept but a circle involving both the sensory and motor organs and the
events in the environment. A perceptual process does not start with the
stimulus; rather, the stimulus is an END of the process, ..."
Regards,
Rupert
[From Richard Kennaway (981214.1505 GMT)]
Rupert Young (981214.1415 UT):
This Psycoloquy article http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.41 may
be of interest to PCTer's. Here's a particularly pertinent quote."Perception is not a linear process proceeding from the stimulus to the
percept but a circle involving both the sensory and motor organs and the
events in the environment. A perceptual process does not start with the
stimulus; rather, the stimulus is an END of the process, ..."
I notice that one of the followup articles, by Neil W. Rickert, refers
Jarvilehto (the author) to Powers.
"William Powers (1973), with his control theoretic ideas about cognition,
is another researcher who has given us a picture of a dynamic system of
inputs and outputs connected in a complex feedback system. His ideas seem
to be widely ignored today, and that is a pity. Perhaps Jarvilehto will be
able to find something of value in them.
...
The latter part of the experiment shows how an organism can effectively use
its abilities to adjust its sensory inputs. This is consistent with the
view that perception is an active process (Gibson 1966), and that feedback
is important (Powers 1973).
...
He seems to be unaware of other possibilities, such as the control theory
of Powers, or the perceptual learning theories of Eleanor Gibson (1969).
Powers, W. T. (1973). Behavior: the control of perception. Aldine
Publishing Co."
Do we know Neil Rickert? A quick scan through my CSGNET archives didn't
reveal his name there.
-- Richard Kennaway, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk, http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/
School of Information Systems, Univ. of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
[From Rupert Young (981214.1530 UT)]
Richard Kennaway (981214.1505 GMT)
I notice that one of the followup articles, by Neil W. Rickert, refers
Jarvilehto (the author) to Powers."William Powers (1973), with his control theoretic ideas about cognition,
is another researcher who has given us a picture of a dynamic system of
inputs and outputs connected in a complex feedback system. His ideas seem
to be widely ignored today, and that is a pity. Perhaps Jarvilehto will be
able to find something of value in them.
Ah, well spotted, I hadn't got that far. However, I did email Jarvilehto and
point him to the CSG site.
Regards,
Rupert
[From Rick Marken (981214.1400)]
Rupert Young (981214.1415 UT)--
This Psycoloquy article...may be of interest to PCTer's. Here's
a particularly pertinent quote."Perception is not a linear process...
Richard Kennaway (981214.1505 GMT) --
I notice that one of the followup articles, by Neil W. Rickert,
refers Jarvilehto (the author) to Powers.
Maybe it's becuase I'm sick of hearing about "articles of impeachment";
maybe it's because I'm sick of being disappointed by the appearance
of would-be perceptual control theorists; but I would like to spend
a moment impeaching Jarvilehto's articles.
After a $40,000,000 investigation of Jarvilehto's article at
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.41
I find evidence that suggests that Jarvilehto is already familiar
with Powers work and has rejected it. The first piece of evidence
is the following:
We could of course suppose, as indicated by the attention
hypothesis, that the influences on receptors are controlled
in such a way that a model of influences is stored in the
central nervous system when they are exerted in the periphery;
this model would then be used in the correction of the
incoming information.
This gets a little incoherent after "in such a way that" but
Jarvilehto is clearly considering the possibility that behavior
is the control of perception: "influences on receptors are
controlled". Jarvilehto rejects this possibility in the
next paragraph:
23. Even so we have the question of how the central nervous
system would "know" how much the receptors should be influenced...
It's possible that Jarvilehto is talking about influences on
controlled variables and the fact that the system can't perceive
"know" these influences directly. This would be esculpating
evidence (notice how I include it in _my_ report;-)) so Jarvilehto
may not be rejecting the idea of "control of perception". I hope
this is the case and that Jarvilehto will soon join with us
in the study of behavior as the control of perceptual variables.
But here is a second, more troubling, piece of evidence that
suggests that Jarvilehto has run into Powers' work, taken
what he wanted and ignored what is most important: that behavior
is the control of perception. Here's the troublesome quote:
Perception joins new parts of the environment to the organism-
environment system; thus knowledge is formed by perception through
a reorganization (a widening and differentiation) of the organism-
environment system rather than through the transmission of
information from the environment.
I have never seen anyone but Powers use the word "reorganization"
to describe that Jarvilehto is talking about here, which is
typically called "learning". Given the similarity of Jarvilehto's
ideas to those of Powers (even if he misses the main point: control
of perception) it seems very suspicious to find the term
"reorganization" used in this context.
So I'm thinking Jarvilehto stole what he needed from Powers, never
bothered mentioning Powers's influence and distorted what he
did take (that's three impeachements of the article;-))
What say ye, CSGNet?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Rupert Young (981215.1134 UT)]
Rick Marken (981214.1400)]
After a $40,000,000 investigation of Jarvilehto's article at
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.41I find evidence that suggests that Jarvilehto is already familiar
with Powers work and has rejected it. The first piece of evidence
is the following:....
This gets a little incoherent after "in such a way that" but
Jarvilehto is clearly considering the possibility that behavior
is the control of perception:...
But here is a second, more troubling, piece of evidence that
suggests that Jarvilehto has run into Powers' work, ...
I have never seen anyone but Powers use the word "reorganization"
to describe that Jarvilehto is talking about here, which is
typically called "learning". ... it seems very suspicious to find the term
"reorganization" used in this context.So I'm thinking Jarvilehto stole what he needed from Powers, ...
Well that's just the sort of attitude I'd expect from such a fan of Mr Starr.
The "evidence" is entirely circumstantial. Where are your witnesses ? This is
just a witchhunt and we are all sick of hearing about it. Anyway Prof.
Jarvilehto doesn't even smoke.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Mind you I did find these quotes from,
http://wwwedu.oulu.fi/homepage/tjarvile/chap1.htm
"The reaction of the subject does not appear because a stimulus is presented,
but the stimulus itself is a result of the action of the subject, and it is
possible only therefore that the subject is organized to act in a certain way.
"The subject is not "reacting" to the stimulus, but the behavior of the
subject defines the changes in the environment which may act as "stimuli" and
are needed as a part of the organization necessary for the achievement of the
desired results.
"The events appearing after the stimulus in the brain (or in behavior) are the
result of organization preceding the behavior; they do not reflect any
processing of the stimulus, nor do they indicate any processes started by the
stimulus per se.
"Thus, the perceptual process is not produced by the stimulus, but it is going
on already before its presentation. A stimulus means the possibility of
acting; there is no causal relation between the stimulus and perception,
because the stimulus is only one element in the system realizing perceptual
results. Every perceived change in the environment means a change of behavior,
new possibilities of realizing the results of behavior."
I did get this response from Jarvilehto,
I took a look at the Websites you indicated and I can seen many commonalities > indeed.
Thank you for your contact. I must read more about PCT!
so at the moment he's saying he did not have "intimate relations with that
theory". I believe him.
He also told me that his second name is Wilhelm and a Finnish friend tells me
that "jarvilehto" is the Finnish word for "power". Spooky or what ?
Regards,
Rupert
[From Rick Marken (981215.0920)]
Me:
So I'm thinking Jarvilehto stole what he needed from Powers, ...
Rupert Young (981215.1134 UT)]
Well that's just the sort of attitude I'd expect from such a
fan of Mr Starr.
Any friend of hateful absolutism is a friend of mine;-)
I'm praying, by the way, that the House votes to impeach. It will
be the end of what has become the most hateful, greedy, nasty beast
to stalk this country in decades: the Republican Party;-)
Mind you I did find these quotes from,
http://wwwedu.oulu.fi/homepage/tjarvile/chap1.htm"The reaction of the subject does not appear because a stimulus
is presented, but the stimulus itself is a result of the action
of the subject, and it is possible only therefore that the subject
is organized to act in a certain way.
But the reaction _does_ appear because the stimulus (sensory effect
of the external event, actually) is presented; and the stimulus
(sensory effect) is a result of the action _too_. Both happen
_simultaneously_. It's a _closed loop_. The statement above is not
an abandonment of a cause-effect model in favor of closed loop
control model; it is choosing one part of the causal loop as the
"real" cause-effect path: the path that goes from output to input.
Jarvilehto's alternative to S-R causality seems to be R-S causality.
This is still a bit of a way from control of input.
"The subject is not "reacting" to the stimulus, but the behavior
of the subject defines the changes in the environment which may
act as "stimuli" and are needed as a part of the organization
necessary for the achievement of the desired results.
OK. Here Jarvilehto does seems to be struggling with the
realization that there is a closed loop. This is a good sign.
"Thus, the perceptual process is not produced by the stimulus,
but it is going on already before its presentation. A stimulus
means the possibility of acting
PCT could sure help here since Jarvilehto is just micrometers
away from understanding that controlled input is a function
of _both_ system output _and_ disturbances (what Jarvilehto
calls "stimuli").
I did get this response from Jarvilehto,
> I took a look at the Websites you indicated and I can seen
> many commonalities indeed. Thank you for your contact. I must
> read more about PCT!
Hooray!
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken