Bower birds

CSGnet Archive CSG2010
1

[Martin Taylor 2010.10.11.11.10]

(Actually a few minutes earlier than the time stamp. but I liked the string)

Someone apparently did a test for a controlled variable with bower birds.

I haven't looked at the original paper, which requires purchase or a subscription. Here's a link to the abstract <http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(10)01036-5>, and the description of the study in Science (Random Samples, 17 Sept 2010 p1449):

···

------------
     The twiggy structures Australia's male great bowerbirds build to attract mates are impressive, adorned with shells, rocks, and bones. Now research suggests that the embellishments may allow the males to appear larger than they really are.
     Called avenues, the structures are courting areas for male bowerbirds. Researchers suspected that the decorations' placement was aimed at females but didn't know why. So biologists mapped the positions of thousands of objects in front of 33 male bowerbirds' avenues. The decorations were placed by size, from small to large, with the smallest items closest to the entrance. When a female enters the avenue, she sees a male at the far end. The objects' arrangement may make the male look "larger and more conspicuous" from the female's vantage point, says Natalie Doerr, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and co-author of the study, published online 9 September in Current Biology.
     When the researchers rearranged the designs, the males put them back in the original order. This behaviour suggests the birds are making deliberate choices, possibly implying some kind of cognitive talent, says Irene Pepperberg, a comparative psychologist at Harvard University. "It's a great study, with valuable new insights about the birds' visual processing," she says.
-------------

If the Science description is correct, which I can't tell from the journal abstract, the researchers tested whether the birds were controlling the size gradient of the approach to the bower, whether or not they knew that's what they were doing. The birds did seem to correct a disturbance to that gradient. To human eyes, a large-to-small gradient would indeed make the bird at the end of the bower seem bigger. Whatever the effect on the females, reorganization over evolutionary time appears to have made controlling this variable enhance the male's mating success. I don't know whether physically larger bowerbirds have greater mating success, which would be something one would want to know before putting too much credence on what Pepperberg or Doerr claim the study demonstrates. What are the females controlling for when they choose a partner?

As an aside, Pepperberg was the owner (?) of the grey parrot Alex, who seemed to understand and to be able to answer verbally some kinds of questions about the environment, such as "How many blue" or "What colour square" when confronted with a tray full of objects variously coloured and shaped, and of a variety of materials. In one TV show about Alex, it was said that when Alex was perched on Pepperberg's shoulder while she was teaching another parrot to talk, Alex piped up "Speak more clearly"! Alex was said to act as though he was jealous of Pepperberg's male students. but not of her female ones. It's hard to know which of these things are really true, but it's fun to think they might be. If so, and Pepperberg had a lot of exprience with Alex and other birds, it's not unreasonable for her to think in terms of "cognitive talent".

What do you call a genetically developed perceptual control system such as what the bowerbirds seem to have? Surely to control a size gradient in the layout of objects collected from the environment is perceptual control, and the layout gradient is not an intrinsic variable. The control of the layout gradient must influence an intrinisic variable, a variable related to mating, but the effect on this variable is created only through its effect on female behaviour. This presumably means either that it disturbs some controlled perception in the female or that it provides an environmental affordance whereby the female can control some perception that is not at its reference value. Presumably that control itself influences some intrinsic variable in the female associated with mating: mating with a larger male brings that variable nearer its reference than mating with a smaller male would do?

However you slice it, we seem to be dealing with social control, by which I mean controlling some perception so that its side effects or direct effects influence the actions of another.

Martin

2

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.11.1745)]

�Martin Taylor (2010.10.11.11.10)--

Someone apparently did a test for a controlled variable with bower birds.

I haven't looked at the original paper, which requires purchase or a
subscription. Here's a link to the abstract
<http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(10)01036-5&gt;,
and the description of the study in Science (Random Samples, 17 Sept 2010
p1449):

Sure sounds like it. Very cute; the birds do seem to control for
having a nice gradient. I don't quite get the perspective/size idea.
If the bird is standing at the "large" stuff , far end of the avenue
gradient, wouldn't that tend to make the bird look smaller (compared
to the large stuff) rather than larger. Maybe I have to see the
Science article to believe it.

But I agree with you that, based on the abstract, the researches did
to a little TCV (the gradient being the hypothetical CV) and found
evidence that the gradient is controlled. And that's all they found.
But it is a nice example of behavioral research that is compatible
with PCT.

Best

Rick

···

------------
� �The twiggy structures Australia's male great bowerbirds build to attract
mates are impressive, adorned with shells, rocks, and bones. Now research
suggests that the embellishments may allow the males to appear larger than
they really are.
� �Called avenues, the structures are courting areas for male bowerbirds.
Researchers suspected that the decorations' placement was aimed at females
but didn't know why. So biologists mapped the positions of thousands of
objects in front of 33 male bowerbirds' avenues. The decorations were placed
by size, from small to large, with the smallest items closest to the
entrance. When a female enters the avenue, she sees a male at the far end.
The objects' arrangement may make the male look "larger and more
conspicuous" from the female's vantage point, says Natalie Doerr, an
evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and
co-author of the study, published online 9 September in Current Biology.
� �When the researchers rearranged the designs, the males put them back in
the original order. This behaviour suggests the birds are making deliberate
choices, possibly implying some kind of cognitive talent, says Irene
Pepperberg, a comparative psychologist at Harvard University. "It's a great
study, with valuable new insights about the birds' visual processing," she
says.
-------------

If the Science description is correct, which I can't tell from the journal
abstract, the researchers tested whether the birds were controlling the size
gradient of the approach to the bower, whether or not they knew that's what
they were doing. The birds did seem to correct a disturbance to that
gradient. To human eyes, a large-to-small gradient would indeed make the
bird at the end of the bower seem bigger. Whatever the effect on the
females, reorganization over evolutionary time appears to have made
controlling this variable enhance the male's mating success. I don't know
whether physically larger bowerbirds have greater mating success, which
would be something one would want to know before putting too much credence
on what Pepperberg or Doerr claim the study demonstrates. What are the
females controlling for when they choose a partner?

As an aside, Pepperberg was the owner (?) of the grey parrot Alex, who
seemed to understand and to be able to answer verbally some kinds of
questions about the environment, such as "How many blue" or "What colour
square" when confronted with a tray full of objects variously coloured and
shaped, and of a variety of materials. In one TV show about Alex, it was
said that when Alex was perched on Pepperberg's shoulder while she was
teaching another parrot to talk, Alex piped up "Speak more clearly"! Alex
was said to act as though he was jealous of Pepperberg's male students. but
not of her female ones. It's hard to know which of these things are really
true, but it's fun to think they might be. If so, and Pepperberg had a lot
of exprience with Alex and other birds, it's not unreasonable for her to
think in terms of "cognitive talent".

What do you call a genetically developed perceptual control system such as
what the bowerbirds seem to have? Surely to control a size gradient in the
layout of objects collected from the environment is perceptual control, and
the layout gradient is not an intrinsic variable. The control of the layout
gradient must influence an intrinisic variable, a variable related to
mating, but the effect on this variable is created only through its effect
on female behaviour. This presumably means either that it disturbs some
controlled perception in the female or that it provides an environmental
affordance whereby the female can control some perception that is not at its
reference value. Presumably that control itself influences some intrinsic
variable in the female associated with mating: mating with a larger male
brings that variable nearer its reference than mating with a smaller male
would do?

However you slice it, we seem to be dealing with social control, by which I
mean controlling some perception so that its side effects or direct effects
influence the actions of another.

Martin

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

3

[Martin Taylor 2010.10.11.23.58]

The larger items are further from the avenue entrance, so the female would be standing near the bigger items and the male would be at the far end of the avenue, beyond (it looks from the picture) the smallest items.

Martin

···

On 2010/10/11 8:46 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.11.1745)]

  Martin Taylor (2010.10.11.11.10)--

Someone apparently did a test for a controlled variable with bower birds.

I haven't looked at the original paper, which requires purchase or a
subscription. Here's a link to the abstract
<http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(10)01036-5&gt;,
and the description of the study in Science (Random Samples, 17 Sept 2010
p1449):

Sure sounds like it. Very cute; the birds do seem to control for
having a nice gradient. I don't quite get the perspective/size idea.
If the bird is standing at the "large" stuff , far end of the avenue
gradient, wouldn't that tend to make the bird look smaller (compared
to the large stuff) rather than larger. Maybe I have to see the
Science article to believe it.

But I agree with you that, based on the abstract, the researches did
to a little TCV (the gradient being the hypothetical CV) and found
evidence that the gradient is controlled. And that's all they found.
But it is a nice example of behavioral research that is compatible
with PCT.

Best

Rick

------------
    The twiggy structures Australia's male great bowerbirds build to attract
mates are impressive, adorned with shells, rocks, and bones. Now research
suggests that the embellishments may allow the males to appear larger than
they really are.
    Called avenues, the structures are courting areas for male bowerbirds.
Researchers suspected that the decorations' placement was aimed at females
but didn't know why. So biologists mapped the positions of thousands of
objects in front of 33 male bowerbirds' avenues. The decorations were placed
by size, from small to large, with the smallest items closest to the
entrance. When a female enters the avenue, she sees a male at the far end.
The objects' arrangement may make the male look "larger and more
conspicuous" from the female's vantage point, says Natalie Doerr, an
evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and
co-author of the study, published online 9 September in Current Biology.
    When the researchers rearranged the designs, the males put them back in
the original order. This behaviour suggests the birds are making deliberate
choices, possibly implying some kind of cognitive talent, says Irene
Pepperberg, a comparative psychologist at Harvard University. "It's a great
study, with valuable new insights about the birds' visual processing," she
says.
-------------

If the Science description is correct, which I can't tell from the journal
abstract, the researchers tested whether the birds were controlling the size
gradient of the approach to the bower, whether or not they knew that's what
they were doing. The birds did seem to correct a disturbance to that
gradient. To human eyes, a large-to-small gradient would indeed make the
bird at the end of the bower seem bigger. Whatever the effect on the
females, reorganization over evolutionary time appears to have made
controlling this variable enhance the male's mating success. I don't know
whether physically larger bowerbirds have greater mating success, which
would be something one would want to know before putting too much credence
on what Pepperberg or Doerr claim the study demonstrates. What are the
females controlling for when they choose a partner?

As an aside, Pepperberg was the owner (?) of the grey parrot Alex, who
seemed to understand and to be able to answer verbally some kinds of
questions about the environment, such as "How many blue" or "What colour
square" when confronted with a tray full of objects variously coloured and
shaped, and of a variety of materials. In one TV show about Alex, it was
said that when Alex was perched on Pepperberg's shoulder while she was
teaching another parrot to talk, Alex piped up "Speak more clearly"! Alex
was said to act as though he was jealous of Pepperberg's male students. but
not of her female ones. It's hard to know which of these things are really
true, but it's fun to think they might be. If so, and Pepperberg had a lot
of exprience with Alex and other birds, it's not unreasonable for her to
think in terms of "cognitive talent".

What do you call a genetically developed perceptual control system such as
what the bowerbirds seem to have? Surely to control a size gradient in the
layout of objects collected from the environment is perceptual control, and
the layout gradient is not an intrinsic variable. The control of the layout
gradient must influence an intrinisic variable, a variable related to
mating, but the effect on this variable is created only through its effect
on female behaviour. This presumably means either that it disturbs some
controlled perception in the female or that it provides an environmental
affordance whereby the female can control some perception that is not at its
reference value. Presumably that control itself influences some intrinsic
variable in the female associated with mating: mating with a larger male
brings that variable nearer its reference than mating with a smaller male
would do?

However you slice it, we seem to be dealing with social control, by which I
mean controlling some perception so that its side effects or direct effects
influence the actions of another.

Martin

4

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.11.2145)]

�[Martin Taylor 2010.10.11.23.58]

The larger items are further from the avenue entrance, so the female would
be standing near the bigger items and the male would be at the far end of
the avenue, beyond (it looks from the picture) the smallest items.

I get it. I was thinking that the gradient was _in_ the avenue. But
the gradient leads up to the entrance of the avenue, where Romeo bird
sits. So the gradient is like a welcoming carpet with the small items
at the end of the carpet, near the entrance.

It could be that the gradient is for size. If so, the smaller the
items at the end of the gradient, the better the male bird does (other
things being equal). More TCVs, in this case teh females CV.

Best

Rick

···

Martin

On 2010/10/11 8:46 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.11.1745)]

�Martin Taylor (2010.10.11.11.10)--

Someone apparently did a test for a controlled variable with bower birds.

I haven't looked at the original paper, which requires purchase or a
subscription. Here's a link to the abstract
<http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(10)01036-5&gt;,
and the description of the study in Science (Random Samples, 17 Sept 2010
p1449):

Sure sounds like it. Very cute; the birds do seem to control for
having a nice gradient. I don't quite get the perspective/size idea.
If the bird is standing at the "large" stuff , far end of the avenue
gradient, wouldn't that tend to make the bird look smaller (compared
to the large stuff) rather than larger. Maybe I have to see the
Science article to believe it.

But I agree with you that, based on the abstract, the researches did
to a little TCV (the gradient being the hypothetical CV) and found
evidence that the gradient is controlled. �And that's all they found.
But it is a nice example of behavioral research that is compatible
with PCT.

Best

Rick

------------
� �The twiggy structures Australia's male great bowerbirds build to
attract
mates are impressive, adorned with shells, rocks, and bones. Now research
suggests that the embellishments may allow the males to appear larger
than
they really are.
� �Called avenues, the structures are courting areas for male bowerbirds.
Researchers suspected that the decorations' placement was aimed at
females
but didn't know why. So biologists mapped the positions of thousands of
objects in front of 33 male bowerbirds' avenues. The decorations were
placed
by size, from small to large, with the smallest items closest to the
entrance. When a female enters the avenue, she sees a male at the far
end.
The objects' arrangement may make the male look "larger and more
conspicuous" from the female's vantage point, says Natalie Doerr, an
evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara,
and
co-author of the study, published online 9 September in Current Biology.
� �When the researchers rearranged the designs, the males put them back
in
the original order. This behaviour suggests the birds are making
deliberate
choices, possibly implying some kind of cognitive talent, says Irene
Pepperberg, a comparative psychologist at Harvard University. "It's a
great
study, with valuable new insights about the birds' visual processing,"
she
says.
-------------

If the Science description is correct, which I can't tell from the
journal
abstract, the researchers tested whether the birds were controlling the
size
gradient of the approach to the bower, whether or not they knew that's
what
they were doing. The birds did seem to correct a disturbance to that
gradient. To human eyes, a large-to-small gradient would indeed make the
bird at the end of the bower seem bigger. Whatever the effect on the
females, reorganization over evolutionary time appears to have made
controlling this variable enhance the male's mating success. I don't know
whether physically larger bowerbirds have greater mating success, which
would be something one would want to know before putting too much
credence
on what Pepperberg or Doerr claim the study demonstrates. What are the
females controlling for when they choose a partner?

As an aside, Pepperberg was the owner (?) of the grey parrot Alex, who
seemed to understand and to be able to answer verbally some kinds of
questions about the environment, such as "How many blue" or "What colour
square" when confronted with a tray full of objects variously coloured
and
shaped, and of a variety of materials. In one TV show about Alex, it was
said that when Alex was perched on Pepperberg's shoulder while she was
teaching another parrot to talk, Alex piped up "Speak more clearly"! Alex
was said to act as though he was jealous of Pepperberg's male students.
but
not of her female ones. It's hard to know which of these things are
really
true, but it's fun to think they might be. If so, and Pepperberg had a
lot
of exprience with Alex and other birds, it's not unreasonable for her to
think in terms of "cognitive talent".

What do you call a genetically developed perceptual control system such
as
what the bowerbirds seem to have? Surely to control a size gradient in
the
layout of objects collected from the environment is perceptual control,
and
the layout gradient is not an intrinsic variable. The control of the
layout
gradient must influence an intrinisic variable, a variable related to
mating, but the effect on this variable is created only through its
effect
on female behaviour. This presumably means either that it disturbs some
controlled perception in the female or that it provides an environmental
affordance whereby the female can control some perception that is not at
its
reference value. Presumably that control itself influences some intrinsic
variable in the female associated with mating: mating with a larger male
brings that variable nearer its reference than mating with a smaller male
would do?

However you slice it, we seem to be dealing with social control, by which
I
mean controlling some perception so that its side effects or direct
effects
influence the actions of another.

Martin

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

5

[Martin Lewitt Oct 11, 2010 23:54 MDT]
They are creating an illusion of being at a greater distance than they are. One of the visual cues for distance is the size of objects. The items close the female are larger and if the mind assumes the objects are the same size all the way up to the male, then those items that look smaller must be at a greater distance. The male would have to be bigger to look the size he does at that greater perceptual distance. The males are controlling the perception of the females.

-- Martin

···

On 10/11/2010 10:00 PM, Martin Taylor wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2010.10.11.23.58]

The larger items are further from the avenue entrance, so the female would be standing near the bigger items and the male would be at the far end of the avenue, beyond (it looks from the picture) the smallest items.

Martin

On 2010/10/11 8:46 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2010.10.11.1745)]

  Martin Taylor (2010.10.11.11.10)--

Someone apparently did a test for a controlled variable with bower birds.

I haven't looked at the original paper, which requires purchase or a
subscription. Here's a link to the abstract
<http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(10)01036-5&gt;,

and the description of the study in Science (Random Samples, 17 Sept 2010
p1449):

Sure sounds like it. Very cute; the birds do seem to control for
having a nice gradient. I don't quite get the perspective/size idea.
If the bird is standing at the "large" stuff , far end of the avenue
gradient, wouldn't that tend to make the bird look smaller (compared
to the large stuff) rather than larger. Maybe I have to see the
Science article to believe it.

But I agree with you that, based on the abstract, the researches did
to a little TCV (the gradient being the hypothetical CV) and found
evidence that the gradient is controlled. And that's all they found.
But it is a nice example of behavioral research that is compatible
with PCT.

Best

Rick

------------
    The twiggy structures Australia's male great bowerbirds build to attract
mates are impressive, adorned with shells, rocks, and bones. Now research
suggests that the embellishments may allow the males to appear larger than
they really are.
    Called avenues, the structures are courting areas for male bowerbirds.
Researchers suspected that the decorations' placement was aimed at females
but didn't know why. So biologists mapped the positions of thousands of
objects in front of 33 male bowerbirds' avenues. The decorations were placed
by size, from small to large, with the smallest items closest to the
entrance. When a female enters the avenue, she sees a male at the far end.
The objects' arrangement may make the male look "larger and more
conspicuous" from the female's vantage point, says Natalie Doerr, an
evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and
co-author of the study, published online 9 September in Current Biology.
    When the researchers rearranged the designs, the males put them back in
the original order. This behaviour suggests the birds are making deliberate
choices, possibly implying some kind of cognitive talent, says Irene
Pepperberg, a comparative psychologist at Harvard University. "It's a great
study, with valuable new insights about the birds' visual processing," she
says.
-------------

If the Science description is correct, which I can't tell from the journal
abstract, the researchers tested whether the birds were controlling the size
gradient of the approach to the bower, whether or not they knew that's what
they were doing. The birds did seem to correct a disturbance to that
gradient. To human eyes, a large-to-small gradient would indeed make the
bird at the end of the bower seem bigger. Whatever the effect on the
females, reorganization over evolutionary time appears to have made
controlling this variable enhance the male's mating success. I don't know
whether physically larger bowerbirds have greater mating success, which
would be something one would want to know before putting too much credence
on what Pepperberg or Doerr claim the study demonstrates. What are the
females controlling for when they choose a partner?

As an aside, Pepperberg was the owner (?) of the grey parrot Alex, who
seemed to understand and to be able to answer verbally some kinds of
questions about the environment, such as "How many blue" or "What colour
square" when confronted with a tray full of objects variously coloured and
shaped, and of a variety of materials. In one TV show about Alex, it was
said that when Alex was perched on Pepperberg's shoulder while she was
teaching another parrot to talk, Alex piped up "Speak more clearly"! Alex
was said to act as though he was jealous of Pepperberg's male students. but
not of her female ones. It's hard to know which of these things are really
true, but it's fun to think they might be. If so, and Pepperberg had a lot
of exprience with Alex and other birds, it's not unreasonable for her to
think in terms of "cognitive talent".

What do you call a genetically developed perceptual control system such as
what the bowerbirds seem to have? Surely to control a size gradient in the
layout of objects collected from the environment is perceptual control, and
the layout gradient is not an intrinsic variable. The control of the layout
gradient must influence an intrinisic variable, a variable related to
mating, but the effect on this variable is created only through its effect
on female behaviour. This presumably means either that it disturbs some
controlled perception in the female or that it provides an environmental
affordance whereby the female can control some perception that is not at its
reference value. Presumably that control itself influences some intrinsic
variable in the female associated with mating: mating with a larger male
brings that variable nearer its reference than mating with a smaller male
would do?

However you slice it, we seem to be dealing with social control, by which I
mean controlling some perception so that its side effects or direct effects
influence the actions of another.

Martin

6

[Frank Lenk 2010.10.12.08.38 CDT]

Martin - I found this very interesting, and is exactly the kind of "social" control I hope my multiple agents learn to demonstrate. I am wondering how you might approach modeling this. Your paragraph, reproduced below, seems tantalizingly close to describing such a model:

"Surely to control a size gradient
in the layout of objects collected from the environment is perceptual
control, and the layout gradient is not an intrinsic variable. The
control of the layout gradient must influence an intrinisic variable, a
variable related to mating, but the effect on this variable is created
only through its effect on female behaviour. This presumably means
either that it disturbs some controlled perception in the female or that
it provides an environmental affordance whereby the female can control
some perception that is not at its reference value. Presumably that
control itself influences some intrinsic variable in the female
associated with mating: mating with a larger male brings that variable
nearer its reference than mating with a smaller male would do"

What would a control system diagram of this look like? If you have the time to sketch out a simplified version, it would help me greatly. Seems like it requires a hierarchy of control systems, one for the object size gradient and one for the intrinsic mating variable. Are females the environmental variable in the intrinsic mating control system?

Thanks in advance.

Frank

Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
Kansas City, MO

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Taylor
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 10:06 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: [CSGNET] Bower birds

  [Martin Taylor 2010.10.11.11.10]

(Actually a few minutes earlier than the time stamp. but I liked the string)

Someone apparently did a test for a controlled variable with bower birds.

I haven't looked at the original paper, which requires purchase or a
subscription. Here's a link to the abstract
<http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(10)01036-5>, and
the description of the study in Science (Random Samples, 17 Sept 2010
p1449):

------------
     The twiggy structures Australia's male great bowerbirds build to
attract mates are impressive, adorned with shells, rocks, and bones. Now
research suggests that the embellishments may allow the males to appear
larger than they really are.
     Called avenues, the structures are courting areas for male
bowerbirds. Researchers suspected that the decorations' placement was
aimed at females but didn't know why. So biologists mapped the positions
of thousands of objects in front of 33 male bowerbirds' avenues. The
decorations were placed by size, from small to large, with the smallest
items closest to the entrance. When a female enters the avenue, she sees
a male at the far end. The objects' arrangement may make the male look
"larger and more conspicuous" from the female's vantage point, says
Natalie Doerr, an evolutionary biologist at the University of
California, Santa Barbara, and co-author of the study, published online
9 September in Current Biology.
     When the researchers rearranged the designs, the males put them
back in the original order. This behaviour suggests the birds are making
deliberate choices, possibly implying some kind of cognitive talent,
says Irene Pepperberg, a comparative psychologist at Harvard University.
"It's a great study, with valuable new insights about the birds' visual
processing," she says.
-------------

If the Science description is correct, which I can't tell from the
journal abstract, the researchers tested whether the birds were
controlling the size gradient of the approach to the bower, whether or
not they knew that's what they were doing. The birds did seem to correct
a disturbance to that gradient. To human eyes, a large-to-small gradient
would indeed make the bird at the end of the bower seem bigger. Whatever
the effect on the females, reorganization over evolutionary time appears
to have made controlling this variable enhance the male's mating
success. I don't know whether physically larger bowerbirds have greater
mating success, which would be something one would want to know before
putting too much credence on what Pepperberg or Doerr claim the study
demonstrates. What are the females controlling for when they choose a
partner?

As an aside, Pepperberg was the owner (?) of the grey parrot Alex, who
seemed to understand and to be able to answer verbally some kinds of
questions about the environment, such as "How many blue" or "What colour
square" when confronted with a tray full of objects variously coloured
and shaped, and of a variety of materials. In one TV show about Alex, it
was said that when Alex was perched on Pepperberg's shoulder while she
was teaching another parrot to talk, Alex piped up "Speak more clearly"!
Alex was said to act as though he was jealous of Pepperberg's male
students. but not of her female ones. It's hard to know which of these
things are really true, but it's fun to think they might be. If so, and
Pepperberg had a lot of exprience with Alex and other birds, it's not
unreasonable for her to think in terms of "cognitive talent".

What do you call a genetically developed perceptual control system such
as what the bowerbirds seem to have? Surely to control a size gradient
in the layout of objects collected from the environment is perceptual
control, and the layout gradient is not an intrinsic variable. The
control of the layout gradient must influence an intrinisic variable, a
variable related to mating, but the effect on this variable is created
only through its effect on female behaviour. This presumably means
either that it disturbs some controlled perception in the female or that
it provides an environmental affordance whereby the female can control
some perception that is not at its reference value. Presumably that
control itself influences some intrinsic variable in the female
associated with mating: mating with a larger male brings that variable
nearer its reference than mating with a smaller male would do?

However you slice it, we seem to be dealing with social control, by
which I mean controlling some perception so that its side effects or
direct effects influence the actions of another.

Martin

7

[From Bill Powers (2010.10.12.1045 MDT)]

[Martin Lewitt Oct 11,
2010 23:54 MDT]

They are creating an illusion of being at a greater distance than they
are. One of the visual cues for distance is the size of
objects. The items close the female are larger and if the
mind assumes the objects are the same size all the way up to the male,
then those items that look smaller must be at a greater distance.
The male would have to be bigger to look the size he does at that
greater perceptual distance. The males are controlling the
perception of the females.

BP: I think it is more likely that the male birds are controlling their
own perceptions, since they can’t observe the females’ perceptions.
Everyone is forgetting to put themselves inside the male bower bird. What
does the male bird see? Not a male bird standing where the small stones
are! That would be hard to do. What the male bird sees is a female bird
standing at the end where the large stones are. I’m sure that is enough
for everyone to figure out what perception of his own the male bird is
controlling. Of course there may be an unintended side-effect on the
female’s perceptions from controlling the real variable, that helps the
stupid lovers get together, but that is not under the male bird’s
control.
Here’s another thought. If a certain behavior by one bird causes
intrinsic error to decrease in both birds, will not both
birds end up reorganized in ways that contribute to reducing the
error that caused the one bird’s behavior? Social reorganization? We
should be able to model this. I may not have the relationships quite
right, but this bears looking into.

Best,

Bill P.

8

[Martin Taylor 2010.10.12.13.42]

[From Bill Powers (2010.10.12.1045 MDT)]

    [Martin Lewitt Oct

11,
2010 23:54 MDT]

    They are creating an illusion of being at a greater distance

than they
are. One of the visual cues for distance is the size of
objects. The items close the female are larger and if the
mind assumes the objects are the same size all the way up to the
male,
then those items that look smaller must be at a greater
distance.
The male would have to be bigger to look the size he does at
that
greater perceptual distance. The males are controlling the
perception of the females.

  BP: I think it is more likely that the male birds are controlling

their
own perceptions, since they can’t observe the females’
perceptions.
Everyone is forgetting to put themselves inside the male bower
bird.

A nice use of "everyone" here.

  What

does the male bird see? Not a male bird standing where the small
stones
are! That would be hard to do. What the male bird sees is a female
bird
standing at the end where the large stones are. I’m sure that is
enough
for everyone to figure out what perception of his own the male
bird is
controlling. Of course there may be an unintended side-effect on
the
female’s perceptions from controlling the real variable, that
helps the
stupid lovers get together, but that is not under the male bird’s
control.

In every dialogue, each partner is controlling some perception of

some state of the partner. Whether the mating dance is a dialogue is
a matter for research, but you cannot discount the possibility that
at least one of the partners is controlling for the other to have
some particular perception. A boy putting on a show may be
controlling for having a girl perceive him to be brave and agile.
The male bower bird may (unlikely) be controlling for having the
female perceive him to be big and strong. You can’t dismiss the
possibility of either out of hand.

The control that seems to have been demonstrated is the perception

by the male bird of the gradient of sizes of objects he lays down to
create an approach path to the bower. That’s all. There are two
“why” questions that demand answer by further research: (1) What, if
any, higher-level control system provides references to the
“building an avenue with scaled object sizes” complex of control
systems, and (2) what intrinsic variables are influenced by the side
effects of this perceptual control.

  Here's another thought. If a certain behavior by one bird causes

intrinsic error to decrease in both birds, will not * both
birds* end up reorganized in ways that contribute to reducing
the
error that caused the one bird’s behavior? Social reorganization?
We
should be able to model this. I may not have the relationships
quite
right, but this bears looking into.

Yes. That's what I assume happens in the development of any culture

(I think Dag has my talk on this at the 1993 CSG meeting somewhere
in his archive). Also, I think that it is a generic feature of
reorganization that the influence of controlling a perceptual
variable on an intrinsic variable is almost always a side-effect.
One might argue that a diabetic injecting insulin when the
blood-sugar indicator shows an appropriate value is a direct
perceptual control of an intrinsic variable, but such cases are
pretty rare. More commonly, the stability of the environment permits
the side-effects of certain behaviours to have consistent effects on
intrinsic variables. If the employer goes bankrupt, showing up for
work does not have the effect of assuaging hunger by means of the
food bought with the paypacket.

Martin
···

On 2010/10/12 1:06 PM, Bill Powers wrote:

9

[From Bill Powers (2010.11.13.0957 MDT)]

[Martin Taylor 2010.10.12.13.42] –

BP: I think it is more likely
that the male birds are controlling their own perceptions, since they
can’t observe the females’ perceptions. Everyone is forgetting to put
themselves inside the male bower bird.

MMT: A nice use of “everyone” here.

BP earlier: What does the male
bird see? Not a male bird standing where the small stones are! That would
be hard to do. What the male bird sees is a female bird standing at the
end where the large stones are. I’m sure that is enough for everyone to
figure out what perception of his own the male bird is controlling. Of
course there may be an unintended side-effect on the female’s perceptions
from controlling the real variable, that helps the stupid lovers get
together, but that is not under the male bird’s
control.

MMT: In every dialogue, each partner is controlling some perception of
some state of the partner.

BP: Some observable state, yes.

MMT: Whether the mating dance is
a dialogue is a matter for research, but you cannot discount the
possibility that at least one of the partners is controlling for the
other to have some particular perception.

BP: I think that assertion. when made about a bird, requires pretty
strong support, and at the moment I don’t see how to get it. I’m not even
sure all humans can (or bother to) do it, although some can clearly make
guesses. In my experience, when others try to guess what I am perceiving,
they don’t guess right very often for anything above, say,
events.

MMT: A boy putting on a show may
be controlling for having a girl perceive him to be brave and agile. The
male bower bird may (unlikely) be controlling for having the female
perceive him to be big and strong. You can’t dismiss the possibility of
either out of hand.

BP: I think the shoe is on the other foot. Anthropomorphizing about human
beings is justified since you know what is true for one population (N =
1), but for other species (especially when their brains are the size of
peas) the burden of proof is on the proposer of this idea.

MMT: The control that seems to
have been demonstrated is the perception by the male bird of the gradient
of sizes of objects he lays down to create an approach path to the bower.
That’s all. There are two “why” questions that demand answer by
further research: (1) What, if any, higher-level control system provides
references to the “building an avenue with scaled object sizes”
complex of control systems, and (2) what intrinsic variables are
influenced by the side effects of this perceptual
control.

BP: You have missed my point about what the male bower bird sees. The
male bird sees a female bird who looks smaller than she really is.
The male bird can’t know how he looks to the female, because he never
sees himself from the other end of the corridor. Maybe he has an
intrinsic reference level favoring perceptions of small females. See? I
can guess, too.

BP earlier: Here’s another
thought. If a certain behavior by one bird causes intrinsic error to
decrease in both birds, will not both birds end up
reorganized in ways that contribute to reducing the error that caused the
one bird’s behavior? Social reorganization? We should be able to model
this. I may not have the relationships quite right, but this bears
looking into.

MMT: Yes. That’s what I assume happens in the development of any culture
(I think Dag has my talk on this at the 1993 CSG meeting somewhere in his
archive).

BP: I may have got this idea from you. I still haven’t worked it out to
my own satisfaction, however, so I’m not sure how (or if) it would
work.

MMT: Also, I think that it is a
generic feature of reorganization that the influence of controlling a
perceptual variable on an intrinsic variable is almost always a
side-effect.

BP: Yes. When I do something that decreases both my intrinsic error and
yours, however, there is perceptual evidence inside me of a connection
between my action and the error reduction, but in you there is a rather
strong possibility of making a wrong connection, since your action was
not what reduced the error, though it may appear to have done so. You can
easily end up reorganizing some irrelevant behavior because your
attention is on the wrong perception or you have developed a
superstition.

MMT: One might argue that a
diabetic injecting insulin when the blood-sugar indicator shows an
appropriate value is a direct perceptual control of an intrinsic
variable, but such cases are pretty rare. More commonly, the stability of
the environment permits the side-effects of certain behaviours to have
consistent effects on intrinsic variables. …

BP: That’s not necessary, since control system’s don’t need a stable
environment in order to repeat consistent effects of behavior. There is,
I’ll agree, a stable relationship between intrinsic variables and certain
perceivable variables like hunger, so in that sense the environment is
stable. Well, I guess that’s what you said, though you didn’t specify a
highly-protected environment, and you were talking about stable effects
of behavior rather than stabilized effects on
perceptions.

I am dubious about all this business about guessing what another person
knows. I think that is very hard to determine – though people try to do
this quite often. That’s where these imaginary conversations with someone
you have to please come from. He’ll probably say this, so I’ll say that.
A great way to work your way up to a full-blown anxiety attack – or a
false sense of confidence. Of course if you have some evidence that
people can guess another’s perceptions correctly, without any careful and
systematic TCV, I’ll have to change my mind, but at the moment I’m
unconvinced. I think I see people making wrong guesses about what other
people know all the time.

In the present context, however, the main problem I have is with
projecting human capabilities onto a creature with a very tiny brain and
no language that we know about, and possibly without any of the higher
levels we lay claim to. Show me I’m wrong and I’ll try to suppress my
injured pride.

Best,

Bill P.

10

[Martin Taylor 2010.10.13.13.13]

[From Bill Powers (2010.11.13.0957 MDT)]

[Martin Taylor 2010.10.12.13.42] --

In the present context, however, the main problem I have is with projecting human capabilities onto a creature with a very tiny brain and no language that we know about, and possibly without any of the higher levels we lay claim to. Show me I'm wrong and I'll try to suppress my injured pride.

Sure. All my "claims" were of the form "it is at least possible" or "you can't discount the possibility that", sometimes along with the comment that "it is unlikely that". You are asserting the impossibility that control systems in the birds are controlling this or that. I think it is incumbent on you to show that it is not possible that the birds could be controlling those perceptions, or at the least, to show that for them to be controlling them would be incompatible with some version of PCT. Failing that proof, I would say that you are wrong.

Personally, I never "project human capabilities on" any organism. I consider abstract control systems and what might be controllable under the circumstances. I think that my error, if any, is to ascribe too little capability to humans, rather than too much to other organisms. I don't believe I even consider whether the structure of the control systems in the organism concerned is the same as that of humans, since I don't know what the structure is in humans.

It is entirely possible that organisms whose evolutionary history diverged from ours a long time ago may have control structures organized very differently from ours, just as all insect wings differ from all bird wings, though both allow flight. If control structures don't differ between species that are of distant common ancestry, the similarity may suggest that the common structure has some survival benefit beyond the simple fact of control.

I may comment on other aspects of your message, but no promises.

By the way, in respect of "birdbrain", there seems to be an increasing body of evidence to suggest that some birds have abilities as complex as those of similar sized mammals, or perhaps better. For example, only recently has tool use in the wild been observed in chimpanzees, as it has in crows.

Martin

11

[From Bill Powers (2010.190.13.1315 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2010.10.13.13.13]--

MMT: All my "claims" were of the form "it is at least possible" or "you can't discount the possibility that", sometimes along with the comment that "it is unlikely that". You are asserting the impossibility that control systems in the birds are controlling this or that. I think it is incumbent on you to show that it is not possible that the birds could be controlling those perceptions, or at the least, to show that for them to be controlling them would be incompatible with some version of PCT. Failing that proof, I would say that you are wrong.

BP: That's a novel approach. So if you say something is at least possible, I have to accept it as true until I can prove it's impossible? My rules are pretty much the opposite: anything is possible, but until there's at least some evidence it is true, I see little reason to spend time on it. Under your rules, I guess I am wrong about all this. But under my rules, you are. Who is right?

MMT: Personally, I never "project human capabilities on" any organism.

BP: You mean when you say a boy bower bird is trying to impress a girl bower bird with his size or other capacilities, you are not projecting what you know of human capabilities on another organism? It looks to me as if you are. If you're not, I'd be interested in how you determined that this is what boy bower birds are really doing.

MMT: I consider abstract control systems and what might be controllable under the circumstances.

BP: What kind of abstract systems are boy and girl bower birds? Do you assume that these birds can control anything that's controllable? I know that helicopters are controllable, but I don't think you'd like to ride in one that I was trying to fly. Or if a bower bird were trying to fly it.

MMT: I think that my error, if any, is to ascribe too little capability to humans, rather than too much to other organisms. I don't believe I even consider whether the structure of the control systems in the organism concerned is the same as that of humans, since I don't know what the structure is in humans.

BP: So is your reference condition "attribute the maximum possible capability to every organism"?

MMT: It is entirely possible that organisms whose evolutionary history diverged from ours a long time ago may have control structures organized very differently from ours, just as all insect wings differ from all bird wings, though both allow flight.

BP: Sorry, but that holds water only under your rules. How about "It's entirely possible that organisms whose evolutionary history diverged from our common lineage a long time ago may have control structures organized exactly as ours are"? If negative feedback control actually had the influence on the origins of life that I have speculated about, that would be almost a certainty -- but I forget, statements like that do not require justifications.

The problem is that "It entirely possible" can be followed by any proposition at all (except those explicitly disproven), or by the exact opposite of the same proposition. It's entirely possible that there is a crumb from a cheese sandwich on the front of your shirt, and also that there is not such a thing on your shirt. So which statement is it that I am required to accept until disproven?

MMT: If control structures don't differ between species that are of distant common ancestry, the similarity may suggest that the common structure has some survival benefit beyond the simple fact of control.

BP: I don't think similarities suggest anything. People, on the other hand, often do.

MMT: ... in respect of "birdbrain", there seems to be an increasing body of evidence to suggest that some birds have abilities as complex as those of similar sized mammals, or perhaps better.

BP: I wasn't thinking of the difference in body size, or differences between reptiles and mammals, but simply how much brain power is available. I wouldn't expect a rat to have more capabilities than a bower bird, or vice versa. Different, quite possibly. Which means it is also quite possible that they are the same.

MMT: For example, only recently has tool use in the wild been observed in chimpanzees, as it has in crows.

BP: Hasn't it been known for a long time that chimpanzees use pointed sticks to get termites out of their nests? And isn't "tool use" a bit ridiculous as a category when it lumps pointed sticks with home computers?

Best,

Bill P.

12

[Martin Lewitt Oct 13, 2010 14:19]

I thought the idea was the life all the way down to single cell was trying to control perceptions, even if it was just following a chemical gradient. The male bower bird is obviously creating a perceptual illusion to attract females that has enhanced the evolutionary fitness of his ancestors. Are you now requiring that he be conscious of what he was "trying" to do, in order for it to involve perceptual control? I admit, he probably didn't know why it worked, just as some here didn't. He may just be instinctively creating the gradient the way it looks from his perspective, and is pleasantly surprised when females start strolling down the lane. Maybe the female bower birds are no longer being fooled by this perceptual illusion of greater distance and size, but perhaps it increases their evolutionary fitness to pick the male that is fit enough to create the best illusion anyway.

Martin L.

···

On 10/13/2010 2:07 PM, Bill Powers wrote:

[From Bill Powers (2010.190.13.1315 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2010.10.13.13.13]--

MMT: All my "claims" were of the form "it is at least possible" or "you can't discount the possibility that", sometimes along with the comment that "it is unlikely that". You are asserting the impossibility that control systems in the birds are controlling this or that. I think it is incumbent on you to show that it is not possible that the birds could be controlling those perceptions, or at the least, to show that for them to be controlling them would be incompatible with some version of PCT. Failing that proof, I would say that you are wrong.

BP: That's a novel approach. So if you say something is at least possible, I have to accept it as true until I can prove it's impossible? My rules are pretty much the opposite: anything is possible, but until there's at least some evidence it is true, I see little reason to spend time on it. Under your rules, I guess I am wrong about all this. But under my rules, you are. Who is right?

MMT: Personally, I never "project human capabilities on" any organism.

BP: You mean when you say a boy bower bird is trying to impress a girl bower bird with his size or other capacilities, you are not projecting what you know of human capabilities on another organism? It looks to me as if you are. If you're not, I'd be interested in how you determined that this is what boy bower birds are really doing.

MMT: I consider abstract control systems and what might be controllable under the circumstances.

BP: What kind of abstract systems are boy and girl bower birds? Do you assume that these birds can control anything that's controllable? I know that helicopters are controllable, but I don't think you'd like to ride in one that I was trying to fly. Or if a bower bird were trying to fly it.

MMT: I think that my error, if any, is to ascribe too little capability to humans, rather than too much to other organisms. I don't believe I even consider whether the structure of the control systems in the organism concerned is the same as that of humans, since I don't know what the structure is in humans.

BP: So is your reference condition "attribute the maximum possible capability to every organism"?

MMT: It is entirely possible that organisms whose evolutionary history diverged from ours a long time ago may have control structures organized very differently from ours, just as all insect wings differ from all bird wings, though both allow flight.

BP: Sorry, but that holds water only under your rules. How about "It's entirely possible that organisms whose evolutionary history diverged from our common lineage a long time ago may have control structures organized exactly as ours are"? If negative feedback control actually had the influence on the origins of life that I have speculated about, that would be almost a certainty -- but I forget, statements like that do not require justifications.

The problem is that "It entirely possible" can be followed by any proposition at all (except those explicitly disproven), or by the exact opposite of the same proposition. It's entirely possible that there is a crumb from a cheese sandwich on the front of your shirt, and also that there is not such a thing on your shirt. So which statement is it that I am required to accept until disproven?

MMT: If control structures don't differ between species that are of distant common ancestry, the similarity may suggest that the common structure has some survival benefit beyond the simple fact of control.

BP: I don't think similarities suggest anything. People, on the other hand, often do.

MMT: ... in respect of "birdbrain", there seems to be an increasing body of evidence to suggest that some birds have abilities as complex as those of similar sized mammals, or perhaps better.

BP: I wasn't thinking of the difference in body size, or differences between reptiles and mammals, but simply how much brain power is available. I wouldn't expect a rat to have more capabilities than a bower bird, or vice versa. Different, quite possibly. Which means it is also quite possible that they are the same.

MMT: For example, only recently has tool use in the wild been observed in chimpanzees, as it has in crows.

BP: Hasn't it been known for a long time that chimpanzees use pointed sticks to get termites out of their nests? And isn't "tool use" a bit ridiculous as a category when it lumps pointed sticks with home computers?

Best,

Bill P.

13

[Martin Taylor 2010.10.13.17.11]

[From Bill Powers (2010.190.13.1315 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2010.10.13.13.13]--

MMT: All my "claims" were of the form "it is at least possible" or "you can't discount the possibility that", sometimes along with the comment that "it is unlikely that". You are asserting the impossibility that control systems in the birds are controlling this or that. I think it is incumbent on you to show that it is not possible that the birds could be controlling those perceptions, or at the least, to show that for them to be controlling them would be incompatible with some version of PCT. Failing that proof, I would say that you are wrong.

BP: That's a novel approach. So if you say something is at least possible, I have to accept it as true until I can prove it's impossible?

I see you are in one of your "strange" moods ion which you seek out the most extreme possible misinterpretations and then claim that the misinterpretation is caused by my inadequate facility with language (I realize you haven't reached that stage yet, but judging from past episodes, it wouldn't be far away if I continued a debate).

I am unaware of any form of logic that says "Everything possible is true". Much of the rest of your message is in a similar vein, so I'll just await your return to your normal self.

Martin

···

On 2010/10/13 4:07 PM, Bill Powers wrote:

14

[From Bill Powers(2010.10.13.1642 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2010.10.13.17.11 –

MMT earlier: You are asserting
the impossibility that control systems in the birds are controlling this
or that. I think it is incumbent on you to show that it is not possible
that the birds could be controlling those perceptions, or at the least,
to show that for them to be controlling them would be incompatible with
some version of PCT. Failing that proof, I would say that you are
wrong.

BP earlier: That’s a novel approach. So if you say something is at least
possible, I have to accept it as true until I can prove it’s
impossible?

MMT: I see you are in one of your “strange”
moods

BP: Maybe so. Perhaps we can avoid the usual impasse if you will explain
how my refusal to accept that birds are controlling certain perceptions
is the same as saying that it is impossible that they are controlling
those perceptions. You seem to be assuming that if I agreed it is
possible that they are doing so, I would accept – what? That they
are doing so? That it is reasonable to assume, for the sake of
further discussion, that they are doing so? You would be right in
assuming I reject either of those conclusions, but not because I think it
is impossible that they are controlling those perceptions.

I want something more than “possible.” If I came back to you
and said “Well, I think it’s possible that they are NOT controlling
those perceptions,” thus putting you in my position, what would you
say? Pitting one “possible” against an opposite
“possible,” it seems to me, sums to zero.

The propositions that are possible so vastly outnumber the ones that are
probable that there is no comparison. At the very least, I want
“probable,” with reasons and evidence to support that assertion
and nothing at all to suggest the opposite. But what I want the most is
“unavoidable, incontrovertible.” Sometimes, in simple cases, we
can get close to the last judgment.

MMT: I am unaware of any form of
logic that says “Everything possible is true”. Much of the rest
of your message is in a similar vein, so I’ll just await your return to
your normal self.

BP: This shows that you misunderstand the basis for my objection. I agree
that the things you describe as possible are possible. I refuse, however,
to devote time and effort to investigating the implications of the
endless number of imaginings that are merely possible. First we need to
find out how probable they are and what the evidence is against them. If
there seems to be a reasonable amount of support and nothing to disprove
the idea, it’s worthwhile to look further. Otherwise, in my opinion, it’s
a waste of time.

I hope I don’t seem too abnormal by saying that.

Bill P.