I’m surprised no one has said anything about the IAPCT meeting (or anything else really) on CSGNet. So I’ll take the liberty of giving a brief review of the meeting from memory. Overall the meeting was very cordial, probably because “power laws” were never mentioned. (Bruce Abbott did wear an “Ask me about curvature” button but I didn’t take the bait;-). There were several talks that stimulated my thinking. (No, my thinking isn’t S-R; of course I mean that some of the talks contained content that was a disturbance to some of the higher level perceptual variables I am controlling for. But I think it will be OK to say that something “stimulated out thinking” even after PCT Is the accepted view of behavior just as it’s still OK to say " it was a beautiful sunrise" now that the heliocentric solar system is the accepted model of planetary motion).Â
Richard Phau’s talk on “behavior control” stimulated my thinking about the PCT view of behavior control. And coincidentally my wife was listening to Shakespeare’s Othello and I realized that that play gives one the the great lessons in how to do behavior control while illustrating some of the horrific consequences of doing it.Â
Henry Yin’s talk on the neurophysiology rekindled my interest in the receptive field research of Hubel and Weisel, which seems so compatible with the hierarchical perceptual model of PCT; and it made me wonder why this work was never cited by Powers in B:CP or anywhere else. So I looked it up and saw that we had discussed the Hubel-Weisel work on CSG net and Bill made some good points; but I still think the concept of a receptive field is useful and that the H-B work merits more discussion regarding it’s possible relevance to PCT.Â
I also enjoyed Heather Bell’s lovely talk about bees, not least because she presented so much wonderful data on bee behavior. But the talk also made me realize that the study of “collective control”, like the study of any kind of controlling, has to start with a description of the variable(s) that are being collectively controlled (controlled by more than one organism) before one can start trying to explain how this control is accomplished. I think that by looking at bee behavior through control theory glasses Heather will be able to make some observations about bee behavior that have never been made before!
Because the conference was in Chicago I couldn’t resist going to the Museum of Science and Industry to see the extraordinary model train exhibit. But it happened that there was also a great exhibit of how Pixar produces its animated movies. This was a great exhibit and, I think, relevant to PCT in the sense that the computer animation process involves the use of complex mathematical algorithms to produce behavior that looks realistic. And if you’ve ever seen a Pixar movie (like Toy Story) they do a fantastic job. The relevant to PCT is that Pixar proves that you can use complex mathematics to produce very realistic appearing behavior – behavior that in real organisms is the observer’s view of the organism acting to control it’s own perceptions.Â
Anyway, it was a great conference and I’m looking forward to the conference next year, in 2019, in Manchester, England.Â
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
Thanks, Rick. I’ve been quiet because after the conference I continued on to California for my work with indigenous people there and since returning I’ve been swamped with work.
RM:Â I think it will be OK to say that something “stimulated out thinking” even after PCT Is the accepted view of behavior
paraphrased as
RM:Â some of the talks contained content that was a disturbance to some of the higher level perceptual variables I am controlling for.
I think a better paraphrase will involve something about associative memory within the hierarchy. My perceptions of what you said evoked memory of other perceptions and I began controlling those and other perceptions, mostly in imagination. Elaborating a PCT understanding of what it means to ‘reflect on’ something, and other such expressions.
I’m surprised no one has said anything about the IAPCT meeting (or anything else really) on CSGNet. So I’ll take the liberty of giving a brief review of the meeting from memory. Overall the meeting was very cordial, probably because “power laws” were never mentioned. (Bruce Abbott did wear an “Ask me about curvature” button but I didn’t take the bait;-). There were several talks that stimulated my thinking. (No, my thinking isn’t S-R; of course I mean that some of the talks contained content that was a disturbance to some of the higher level perceptual variables I am controlling for. But I think it will be OK to say that something “stimulated out thinking” even after PCT Is the accepted view of behavior just as it’s still OK to say " it was a beautiful sunrise" now that the heliocentric solar system is the accepted model of planetary motion).Â
Richard Phau’s talk on “behavior control” stimulated my thinking about the PCT view of behavior control. And coincidentally my wife was listening to Shakespeare’s Othello and I realized that that play gives one the the great lessons in how to do behavior control while illustrating some of the horrific consequences of doing it.Â
Henry Yin’s talk on the neurophysiology rekindled my interest in the receptive field research of Hubel and Weisel, which seems so compatible with the hierarchical perceptual model of PCT; and it made me wonder why this work was never cited by Powers in B:CP or anywhere else. So I looked it up and saw that we had discussed the Hubel-Weisel work on CSG net and Bill made some good points; but I still think the concept of a receptive field is useful and that the H-B work merits more discussion regarding it’s possible relevance to PCT.Â
I also enjoyed Heather Bell’s lovely talk about bees, not least because she presented so much wonderful data on bee behavior. But the talk also made me realize that the study of “collective control”, like the study of any kind of controlling, has to start with a description of the variable(s) that are being collectively controlled (controlled by more than one organism) before one can start trying to explain how this control is accomplished. I think that by looking at bee behavior through control theory glasses Heather will be able to make some observations about bee behavior that have never been made before!
Because the conference was in Chicago I couldn’t resist going to the Museum of Science and Industry to see the extraordinary model train exhibit. But it happened that there was also a great exhibit of how Pixar produces its animated movies. This was a great exhibit and, I think, relevant to PCT in the sense that the computer animation process involves the use of complex mathematical algorithms to produce behavior that looks realistic. And if you’ve ever seen a Pixar movie (like Toy Story) they do a fantastic job. The relevant to PCT is that Pixar proves that you can use complex mathematics to produce very realistic appearing behavior – behavior that in real organisms is the observer’s view of the organism acting to control it’s own perceptions.Â
Anyway, it was a great conference and I’m looking forward to the conference next year, in 2019, in Manchester, England.Â
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
BN: Thanks, Rick. I’ve been quiet because after the conference I continued on to California for my work with indigenous people there and since returning I’ve been swamped with work.
RM: Me too!Â
Â
RM:Â I think it will be OK to say that something “stimulated out thinking” even after PCT Is the accepted view of behavior
paraphrased as
RM:Â some of the talks contained content that was a disturbance to some of the higher level perceptual variables I am controlling for.
BN: I think a better paraphrase will involve something about associative memory within the hierarchy. My perceptions of what you said evoked memory of other perceptions and I began controlling those and other perceptions, mostly in imagination. Elaborating a PCT understanding of what it means to ‘reflect on’ something, and other such expressions.
RM: I like my way of saying it better because it makes it clear that the “thinking” that appeared to be “stimulated” by these talks at the IAPCT conference was actually a mental action aimed at protecting a higher (cognitive) level perception from the disturbance created by these talks. This also explains why some talks didn’t appear to stimulate my thinking; they just were’t a disturbance to any variables I was controlling at the time. Â
RM: So like the appearance of the sun rising and setting, the appearance that my thinking was stimulated (caused) by the talks is an illusion. An eventual detailed explanation of how control of such higher level perceptions works may very well involve associative memory. But that level of explanation isn’t needed in order to understand that the the appearance of thoughts being stimulated by certain talks is an illusion like the illusion of the sun moving around a stationary earth.
Best
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
I’m surprised no one has said anything about the IAPCT meeting (or anything else really) on CSGNet. So I’ll take the liberty of giving a brief review of the meeting from memory. Overall the meeting was very cordial, probably because “power laws” were never mentioned. (Bruce Abbott did wear an “Ask me about curvature” button but I didn’t take the bait;-). There were several talks that stimulated my thinking. (No, my thinking isn’t S-R; of course I mean that some of the talks contained content that was a disturbance to some of the higher level perceptual variables I am controlling for. But I think it will be OK to say that something “stimulated out thinking” even after PCT Is the accepted view of behavior just as it’s still OK to say " it was a beautiful sunrise" now that the heliocentric solar system is the accepted model of planetary motion).
Richard Phau’s talk on “behavior control” stimulated my thinking about the PCT view of behavior control.
HB : Where we can see “PCT view of behavior control” in Bills’ literature ???
And coincidentally my wife was listening to Shakespeare’s Othello and I realized that that play gives one the the great lessons in how to do behavior control while illustrating some of the horrific consequences of doing it.
HB : She was obviously listening to Shakespeare’s Othello so it wasn’t “behavior control” but perceptual control.
Henry Yin’s talk on the neurophysiology rekindled my interest in the receptive field research of Hubel and Weisel, which seems so compatible with the hierarchical perceptual model of PCT; and it made me wonder why this work was never cited by Powers in B:CP or anywhere else. So I looked it up and saw that we had discussed the Hubel-Weisel work on CSG net and Bill made some good points; but I still think the concept of a receptive field is useful and that the H-B work merits more discussion regarding it’s possible relevance to PCT.
I also enjoyed Heather Bell’s lovely talk about bees, not least because she presented so much wonderful data on bee behavior. But the talk also made me realize that the study of “collective control”, like the study of any kind of controlling, has to start with a description of the variable(s) that are being collectively controlled (controlled by more than one organism) before one can start trying to explain how this control is accomplished. I think that by looking at bee behavior through control theory glasses Heather will be able to make some observations about bee behavior that have never been made before!
Because the conference was in Chicago I couldn’t resist going to the Museum of Science and Industry to see the extraordinary model train exhibit. But it happened that there was also a great exhibit of how Pixar produces its animated movies. This was a great exhibit and, I think, relevant to PCT in the sense that the computer animation process involves the use of complex mathematical algorithms to produce behavior that looks realistic. And if you’ve ever seen a Pixar movie (like Toy Story) they do a fantastic job. The relevant to PCT is that Pixar proves that you can use complex mathematics to produce very realistic appearing behavior – behavior that in real organisms is the observer’s view of the organism acting to control it’s own perceptions.
Anyway, it was a great conference and I’m looking forward to the conference next year, in 2019, in Manchester, England.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.”
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery