My recently published book chapter: a critique of lineal causality in neuroscience, also offering some alternatives (including, but not only, PCT). Enjoy:
https://behavioroforganismsdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/necsuff_2017.pdf
Alex:
Many thanks for your paper. I read it with great interest. I make no claim as to fully understanding or appreciating your critique of neuroscience but I think I get the gist of it; namely, their own dominant mental models blind them to the true nature of that which they seek to explain and thus, despite massive accumulations of data they end up failing to explain what they set out to explain. Or, as you put it, “we end up learning what we do to things rather than what things do.” I am also reasonably sure Rick Marken will like this line: “to build a model that behaves is much more insightful than to make a model of behavior.”
I also appreciate your style of writing. Like me, I think you enjoy playing with words. Two examples caught my eye. “But, such lack of premise is nothing but a premise of lack.” And, “Pretense of absolute is an absolute premise.”
Toward the end, I really liked this one: “…the animal controls its perception of the environment more effectively than the world controls its behavior.”
And, lest anyone doubt your main point, I chose this one: “Behavior is control.”
If Bill Powers were still with us I am confident he would like and appreciate your paper.
Congratulations!
Fred Nickols
···
From: Alex Gomez-Marin [mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 9:49 AM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Beyond “Necessity and Sufficiency”
My recently published book chapter: a critique of lineal causality in neuroscience, also offering some alternatives (including, but not only, PCT). Enjoy:
https://behavioroforganismsdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/necsuff_2017.pdf
[From Dag Forssell (2017.08.09 15:30 PDT)]
Alex,
I’ll echo Fred’s compliments. This strikes me as a most wonderful paper.
Clear and significant, with a lovely historical perspective.
Your English reads as if you are a native, highly educated English
speaker.
Well done 
Dag
···
At 06:48 AM 8/9/2017, you wrote:
My recently published book
chapter: a critique of lineal causality in neuroscience, also offering
some alternatives (including, but not only, PCT). Enjoy:
https://behavioroforganismsdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/necsuff_2017.pdf
I read it and enjoyed it, too. Nice work, Alex!
Kent
···
On Aug 9, 2017, at 6:24 PM, Dag Forssell csgarchive@pctresources.com wrote:
[From Dag Forssell (2017.08.09 15:30 PDT)]
Alex,
I’ll echo Fred’s compliments. This strikes me as a most wonderful paper. Clear and significant, with a lovely historical perspective.
Your English reads as if you are a native, highly educated English speaker.
Well done
Dag
At 06:48 AM 8/9/2017, you wrote:
My recently published book chapter: a critique of lineal causality in neuroscience, also offering some alternatives (including, but not only, PCT). Enjoy:
https://behavioroforganismsdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/necsuff_2017.pdf
[From Rick Marken (2017.08.10.0930)]
···
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:
AGM: My recently published book chapter: a critique of lineal causality in neuroscience, also offering some alternatives (including, but not only, PCT). Enjoy:
https://behavioroforganismsdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/necsuff_2017.pdf
RM: This is a pretty darn good paper, Alex. At least it seems so from the brief bursts of reading that my granddaughter has let me do. I presume it is already published so it’s no use for me to make suggested edits (for example, in the Abstract you talk about ânecessity and sufficiencyâ? claims being the “goal-standard
in neuroscience”; I believe that should be “gold-standard”, but perhaps not. Your English is excellent and you often seem to wax poetic in this piece so perhaps “goal-standard” was intentional).Â
RM: What book was this published in, by the way? If I get a chance perhaps I could write a review of it.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.â?
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[From Fred Nickols (2017.08.11.0537 ET)]
Interesting. I spotted “goal-standard� too, Rick, however, when I read it I took it to mean roughly the same as “reference condition� in PCT and I thought that was a good fit in that context. Just goes to show that meanings are in people. That said, maybe it should have been gold standard.
Fred Nickols
···
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 12:30 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Beyond “Necessity and Sufficiency”
[From Rick Marken (2017.08.10.0930)]
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:
AGM: My recently published book chapter: a critique of lineal causality in neuroscience, also offering some alternatives (including, but not only, PCT). Enjoy:
https://behavioroforganismsdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/necsuff_2017.pdf
RM: This is a pretty darn good paper, Alex. At least it seems so from the brief bursts of reading that my granddaughter has let me do. I presume it is already published so it’s no use for me to make suggested edits (for example, in the Abstract you talk about “necessity and sufficiencyâ€? claims being the “goal-standard in neuroscience”; I believe that should be “gold-standard”, but perhaps not. Your English is excellent and you often seem to wax poetic in this piece so perhaps “goal-standard” was intentional).
RM: What book was this published in, by the way? If I get a chance perhaps I could write a review of it.
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
[Bruce Nevin (2017.18.11.08:14 PDT)]
At the bottom of the first page I see what I take to be the essential information about the book.
···
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2017.08.10.0930)]
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:
AGM: My recently published book chapter: a critique of lineal causality in neuroscience, also offering some alternatives (including, but not only, PCT). Enjoy:
https://behavioroforganismsdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/necsuff_2017.pdf
RM: This is a pretty darn good paper, Alex. At least it seems so from the brief bursts of reading that my granddaughter has let me do. I presume it is already published so it’s no use for me to make suggested edits (for example, in the Abstract you talk about ânecessity and sufficiencyâ? claims being the “goal-standard
in neuroscience”; I believe that should be “gold-standard”, but perhaps not. Your English is excellent and you often seem to wax poetic in this piece so perhaps “goal-standard” was intentional).Â
RM: What book was this published in, by the way? If I get a chance perhaps I could write a review of it.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.â?
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Hi Fred… I just choosed your statement from your analysis of Alex book…
FN : And, lest anyone doubt your main point, I chose this one: “Behavior is control.”
HB : Behavior is not control and will never be. I’d really like to see evidence for such a statement. Can you direct me to the place where Alex wrote this in his article ?
Thanks,
Boris
···
From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 5:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Beyond “Necessity and Sufficiency”
Alex:
Many thanks for your paper. I read it with great interest. I make no claim as to fully understanding or appreciating your critique of neuroscience but I think I get the gist of it; namely, their own dominant mental models blind them to the true nature of that which they seek to explain and thus, despite massive accumulations of data they end up failing to explain what they set out to explain. Or, as you put it, “we end up learning what we do to things rather than what things do.” I am also reasonably sure Rick Marken will like this line: “to build a model that behaves is much more insightful than to make a model of behavior.”
I also appreciate your style of writing. Like me, I think you enjoy playing with words. Two examples caught my eye. “But, such lack of premise is nothing but a premise of lack.” And, “Pretense of absolute is an absolute premise.”
Toward the end, I really liked this one: “…the animal controls its perception of the environment more effectively than the world controls its behavior.”
And, lest anyone doubt your main point, I chose this one: “Behavior is control.”
If Bill Powers were still with us I am confident he would like and appreciate your paper.
Congratulations!
Fred Nickols
From: Alex Gomez-Marin [mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 9:49 AM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Beyond “Necessity and Sufficiency”
My recently published book chapter: a critique of lineal causality in neuroscience, also offering some alternatives (including, but not only, PCT). Enjoy:
https://behavioroforganismsdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/necsuff_2017.pdf
[From Fred Nickols (2017.08.20.0626 ET)]
Boris:
The short sentence, “Behavior is control.” Appears on page 298 of Alex’ paper, in the section titled “11.3 Beyond Lineal Causality (Allegro).”
Fred Nickols
···
From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 7:18 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Beyond “Necessity and Sufficiency”
Hi Fred… I just choosed your statement from your analysis of Alex book…
FN : And, lest anyone doubt your main point, I chose this one: “Behavior is control.”
HB : Behavior is not control and will never be. I’d really like to see evidence for such a statement. Can you direct me to the place where Alex wrote this in his article ?
Thanks,
Boris
From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 5:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Beyond “Necessity and Sufficiency”
Alex:
Many thanks for your paper. I read it with great interest. I make no claim as to fully understanding or appreciating your critique of neuroscience but I think I get the gist of it; namely, their own dominant mental models blind them to the true nature of that which they seek to explain and thus, despite massive accumulations of data they end up failing to explain what they set out to explain. Or, as you put it, “we end up learning what we do to things rather than what things do.” I am also reasonably sure Rick Marken will like this line: “to build a model that behaves is much more insightful than to make a model of behavior.”
I also appreciate your style of writing. Like me, I think you enjoy playing with words. Two examples caught my eye. “But, such lack of premise is nothing but a premise of lack.” And, “Pretense of absolute is an absolute premise.”
Toward the end, I really liked this one: “…the animal controls its perception of the environment more effectively than the world controls its behavior.”
And, lest anyone doubt your main point, I chose this one: “Behavior is control.”
If Bill Powers were still with us I am confident he would like and appreciate your paper.
Congratulations!
Fred Nickols
From: Alex Gomez-Marin [mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 9:49 AM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Beyond “Necessity and Sufficiency”
My recently published book chapter: a critique of lineal causality in neuroscience, also offering some alternatives (including, but not only, PCT). Enjoy:
https://behavioroforganismsdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/necsuff_2017.pdf