[From Rick Marken (930326.0800)]
Bill Powers (930325.1530)--
I'm gradually working my way back
into the area where my competence lies: modeling. I'm trying to
drag others in the same direction, but basically I just want to
get back into it myself and do something real.
I'll be coming along soon. One of the "real" things that I hope
might come out of this "information in perception" is an idea
for models, demos or experiments that would illustrate
some of the points we are trying to make about the behavior of
a control system. I think your modelling efforts are important
because they show what a control system model can do in terms of
producing observable behavior that is considered "interesting" or
"complex". That is why the ARM demo is so important. What I
want to try to do is develop demos of the "implications" of a
control organization for conceptualizing behavior. Your ARM
demo, for example, manages to produce complex pointing behavior
even though there is no information in the perceptual inputs
to the model that allows it to do this. But this fact about
the operation of the model is not obvious; one could view the
ARM demo as another clever approach to producing observable
behavior instead of what it actually is; a fundementally differnet
conception not only of the processes that generate behavior but
of the nature of behavior itself. I want to try to develop
models (demos, whatever) that show the remarkable implications
of the control model (such as the fact that the model works
without any information about "what to do" coming from its
percpetual inputs). I hope that by pushing on this topic (to
the extent that others are willing to push back) ideas for new
demos-models may be ignited by the sparks of friendly conflict.
While Bill P. is off looking for something real, I'll take the
liberty of responding to:
Greg Williams (930326)
Bill Powers (930325.0850)
Is it arrogance to set standards for accepting knowledge claims
so high that even one's own attempts to make claims are more
likely to fail than succeed?
It is arrogance to suppose that one's own goals are the only, or even
the most, important ones. Such a view then can lead to the belief that
the methods useful in achieving one's own goals are the best methods
for everyone. Just try selling an insurance exec on the method of
modeling -- he/she does fine with statistical descriptions of
populations and doesn't care about predicting individual behaviors.
I was assuming (and Bill was too) that Ken Hacker shares many of
the same goals of PCTers -- such as, the goal of gaining some
knowledge about the processes underlying the phenomenon of human
behavior, both individual and collective. I don't see where Bill,
Mary or I (we've been the only participants in this discussion) have
supposed that our goals are the only or the most important ones.
What gave you that impression? I really am curious. I'm willing
to believe you; I just don't know what "goals" you are talking about
and, because of that, your reply to Bill seems like a non-sequiter.
Let me try to be a bit more specific. I see this "arrogance"
discussion this way:
1) Ken Hacker said that PCTer are arrogant because they make
"hyperbolic" claims. I agree that making hyperbolic claims is
arrogant so PCTers who make such claims are arrogant.
2) I said: Please tell me what hyperboloic claims have been made and
please explain why they are hyperbolic, using mathematical, working
model or experimental evidence.
3) Ken Hacker said that my asking for such evidence was "arrogant".
4) That was followed by Bill P's delicious question:
Is it arrogance to set standards for accepting knowledge claims
so high that even one's own attempts to make claims are more
likely to fail than succeed?
I don't see how you got from this dialog to:
It is arrogance to suppose that one's own goals are the only, or even
the most, important ones.
Help me out here.
By the way, I think its fine for people studying population
level phenomena (insurance companies, polling agencies, etc) to
use sampling statistics. Their goals are different from mine (in
PCT) and that's fine with me. I have no interest in trying to
derive actuarial phenomena from individual behavioral models.
Best
Rick