Brain Images (and Living in the Modern World)

CSGnet Archive CSG2013
1

[From Rick Marken (2013.02.17.1030)]

Fred Nickols (2013.02.17.0913 AZ)–

FN: The link is to a 2 min video about the wiring of the brain.

There MIGHT be a connection to PCT somewhere, someday, MAYBE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21489097

RM: Thanks Fred. Those are very pretty pictures. It would be nice if they could include in the map a color code that distinguishes the afferent and efferent fibers and the places where they synapse (comparators). Maybe that would give hints about the structure of the control organizations. As it is this looks like another very high tech way of getting neurological data (like fMRI) that is used to detect rather gross behavioral correlations (like a correlation between certain aspects of the brain scan picture with behavioral measures like “dyslexia”) whose value is not clear at all.

Actually this post of yours is related to something I was thinking about and planned to post on anyway this morning: is CSGNet – and email correspondence in general – old hat? I was thinking about it because the traffic on CSGNet is rather low compared to the old days, and limited to a very few people. This made me wonder whether internet communications these days have moved from email to “social media” venues, like Facebook and Twitter. I’ve used Facebook for some conversations and found it quite unpleasant – the amount of space for writing was very limited, at least back a couple years ago, and the people I was talking with seemed like the kind of “thinkers” I’ve heard on right wing radio-- and I have no idea what Twitter is about or why anyone would want to use it. But it seems like these are the new ways of communicating in the Modern World.

So I wonder, is CSGNet obsolete? Should we be using other media venues to discuss perceptual control theory and related issues? Has the Modern World finally passed me by? I still believe in publishing scholarly research in peer reviewed journals. But CSGNet used to be a great medium for debate, new research ideas and just keeping up with the latest in the field. But it started back in 1990 – so it’s over twenty years old. Is it time to think about changing the medium for the message? I hope there are some young people out there (and some hep older ones too) who are willing to share some ideas about this. If nothing else, maybe someone could tell me why (and how) one would want to use Twitter.

Thanks.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

2

[From Fred Nickols (2013.02.18.1240 AZ)]

Rule 1: Don’t confuse quality with quantity. Yes, the postings do seem to be down but from my admittedly benighted grasp of things, the quality is up.

Rule 2: Facebook? Fuhgeddaboutit.

Rule3: Twitter? Fuhgeddaboutit.

Rule 4: LinkedIn? That might work. I’ll go set up a PCT group and let’s play with it for a while.

Rule 5: I’m getting better. I pretty much predicted your response to the brain video (i.e., “pretty pictures” but…).

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“Assistance at A DistanceTM”

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

Blog: Knowledge Worker Tools

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:27 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Brain Images (and Living in the Modern World)

[From Rick Marken (2013.02.17.1030)]

Fred Nickols (2013.02.17.0913 AZ)–

FN: The link is to a 2 min video about the wiring of the brain.

There MIGHT be a connection to PCT somewhere, someday, MAYBE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21489097

RM: Thanks Fred. Those are very pretty pictures. It would be nice if they could include in the map a color code that distinguishes the afferent and efferent fibers and the places where they synapse (comparators). Maybe that would give hints about the structure of the control organizations. As it is this looks like another very high tech way of getting neurological data (like fMRI) that is used to detect rather gross behavioral correlations (like a correlation between certain aspects of the brain scan picture with behavioral measures like “dyslexia”) whose value is not clear at all.

Actually this post of yours is related to something I was thinking about and planned to post on anyway this morning: is CSGNet – and email correspondence in general – old hat? I was thinking about it because the traffic on CSGNet is rather low compared to the old days, and limited to a very few people. This made me wonder whether internet communications these days have moved from email to “social media” venues, like Facebook and Twitter. I’ve used Facebook for some conversations and found it quite unpleasant – the amount of space for writing was very limited, at least back a couple years ago, and the people I was talking with seemed like the kind of “thinkers” I’ve heard on right wing radio-- and I have no idea what Twitter is about or why anyone would want to use it. But it seems like these are the new ways of communicating in the Modern World.

So I wonder, is CSGNet obsolete? Should we be using other media venues to discuss perceptual control theory and related issues? Has the Modern World finally passed me by? I still believe in publishing scholarly research in peer reviewed journals. But CSGNet used to be a great medium for debate, new research ideas and just keeping up with the latest in the field. But it started back in 1990 – so it’s over twenty years old. Is it time to think about changing the medium for the message? I hope there are some young people out there (and some hep older ones too) who are willing to share some ideas about this. If nothing else, maybe someone could tell me why (and how) one would want to use Twitter.

Thanks.

Best regards

Rick

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

3

[From Fred Nickols (2013.02.18.1256)]

OK. I set up a PCT group on LinkedIn. Anyone wants an invite, let me know or you can go to LinkedIn and sign up on your own. If you do, please review the description, etc and advise me of any changes.

Even if we don’t use it it’s probably a good idea to have a PCT stake in the ground on LinkedIn.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Distance Consulting LLC

www.nickols.us

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:27 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Brain Images (and Living in the Modern World)

[From Rick Marken (2013.02.17.1030)]

Fred Nickols (2013.02.17.0913 AZ)–

FN: The link is to a 2 min video about the wiring of the brain.

There MIGHT be a connection to PCT somewhere, someday, MAYBE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21489097

RM: Thanks Fred. Those are very pretty pictures. It would be nice if they could include in the map a color code that distinguishes the afferent and efferent fibers and the places where they synapse (comparators). Maybe that would give hints about the structure of the control organizations. As it is this looks like another very high tech way of getting neurological data (like fMRI) that is used to detect rather gross behavioral correlations (like a correlation between certain aspects of the brain scan picture with behavioral measures like “dyslexia”) whose value is not clear at all.

Actually this post of yours is related to something I was thinking about and planned to post on anyway this morning: is CSGNet – and email correspondence in general – old hat? I was thinking about it because the traffic on CSGNet is rather low compared to the old days, and limited to a very few people. This made me wonder whether internet communications these days have moved from email to “social media” venues, like Facebook and Twitter. I’ve used Facebook for some conversations and found it quite unpleasant – the amount of space for writing was very limited, at least back a couple years ago, and the people I was talking with seemed like the kind of “thinkers” I’ve heard on right wing radio-- and I have no idea what Twitter is about or why anyone would want to use it. But it seems like these are the new ways of communicating in the Modern World.

So I wonder, is CSGNet obsolete? Should we be using other media venues to discuss perceptual control theory and related issues? Has the Modern World finally passed me by? I still believe in publishing scholarly research in peer reviewed journals. But CSGNet used to be a great medium for debate, new research ideas and just keeping up with the latest in the field. But it started back in 1990 – so it’s over twenty years old. Is it time to think about changing the medium for the message? I hope there are some young people out there (and some hep older ones too) who are willing to share some ideas about this. If nothing else, maybe someone could tell me why (and how) one would want to use Twitter.

Thanks.

Best regards

Rick

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

4

[From Rick Marken (2013.02.17.1255)]

Fred Nickols (2013.02.18.1240 AZ) –

Rule 1: Don’t confuse quality with quantity. Yes, the postings do seem to be down but from my admittedly benighted grasp of things, the quality is up.

Rule 2: Facebook? Fuhgeddaboutit.

Rule3: Twitter? Fuhgeddaboutit.

Rule 4: LinkedIn? That might work. I’ll go set up a PCT group and let’s play with it for a while.

RM: Great. Thanks, Fred.

Rule 5: I’m getting better. I pretty much predicted your response to the brain video (i.e., “pretty pictures” but…).

RM: I like to be predictable; shows that you know what I’m controlling for. But I don’t want you to think that I don’t like pretty pictures (of the brain) or the high technology that produces them. I think they are very cool. I just think that these pretty pictures can ()and do) seduce people into thinking that they tell more about how the brain (and behavior) works than they actually do.

Best

Rick

···

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“Assistance at A DistanceTM”

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

Blog: Knowledge Worker Tools

www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:27 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Brain Images (and Living in the Modern World)

[From Rick Marken (2013.02.17.1030)]

Fred Nickols (2013.02.17.0913 AZ)–

FN: The link is to a 2 min video about the wiring of the brain.

There MIGHT be a connection to PCT somewhere, someday, MAYBE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21489097

RM: Thanks Fred. Those are very pretty pictures. It would be nice if they could include in the map a color code that distinguishes the afferent and efferent fibers and the places where they synapse (comparators). Maybe that would give hints about the structure of the control organizations. As it is this looks like another very high tech way of getting neurological data (like fMRI) that is used to detect rather gross behavioral correlations (like a correlation between certain aspects of the brain scan picture with behavioral measures like “dyslexia”) whose value is not clear at all.

Actually this post of yours is related to something I was thinking about and planned to post on anyway this morning: is CSGNet – and email correspondence in general – old hat? I was thinking about it because the traffic on CSGNet is rather low compared to the old days, and limited to a very few people. This made me wonder whether internet communications these days have moved from email to “social media” venues, like Facebook and Twitter. I’ve used Facebook for some conversations and found it quite unpleasant – the amount of space for writing was very limited, at least back a couple years ago, and the people I was talking with seemed like the kind of “thinkers” I’ve heard on right wing radio-- and I have no idea what Twitter is about or why anyone would want to use it. But it seems like these are the new ways of communicating in the Modern World.

So I wonder, is CSGNet obsolete? Should we be using other media venues to discuss perceptual control theory and related issues? Has the Modern World finally passed me by? I still believe in publishing scholarly research in peer reviewed journals. But CSGNet used to be a great medium for debate, new research ideas and just keeping up with the latest in the field. But it started back in 1990 – so it’s over twenty years old. Is it time to think about changing the medium for the message? I hope there are some young people out there (and some hep older ones too) who are willing to share some ideas about this. If nothing else, maybe someone could tell me why (and how) one would want to use Twitter.

Thanks.

Best regards

Rick

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

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

5

[From Rick Marken (2013.02.17.1300)

Fred Nickols (2013.02.18.1256)–

OK. I set up a PCT group on LinkedIn. Anyone wants an invite, let me know or you can go to LinkedIn and sign up on your own. If you do, please review the description, etc and advise me of any changes.

RM: Looks great. I joined. Now I guess I’ll wait for all the cool discussions;-)

Even if we don’t use it it’s probably a good idea to have a PCT stake in the ground on LinkedIn.

RM: OK, here we go. Into the modern world. But I think I’ll keep at least one foot in the old one. Love that old time technology. Hallelujah.

Best

Rick

···

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Distance Consulting LLC

www.nickols.us

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:27 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Brain Images (and Living in the Modern World)

[From Rick Marken (2013.02.17.1030)]

Fred Nickols (2013.02.17.0913 AZ)–

FN: The link is to a 2 min video about the wiring of the brain.

There MIGHT be a connection to PCT somewhere, someday, MAYBE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21489097

RM: Thanks Fred. Those are very pretty pictures. It would be nice if they could include in the map a color code that distinguishes the afferent and efferent fibers and the places where they synapse (comparators). Maybe that would give hints about the structure of the control organizations. As it is this looks like another very high tech way of getting neurological data (like fMRI) that is used to detect rather gross behavioral correlations (like a correlation between certain aspects of the brain scan picture with behavioral measures like “dyslexia”) whose value is not clear at all.

Actually this post of yours is related to something I was thinking about and planned to post on anyway this morning: is CSGNet – and email correspondence in general – old hat? I was thinking about it because the traffic on CSGNet is rather low compared to the old days, and limited to a very few people. This made me wonder whether internet communications these days have moved from email to “social media” venues, like Facebook and Twitter. I’ve used Facebook for some conversations and found it quite unpleasant – the amount of space for writing was very limited, at least back a couple years ago, and the people I was talking with seemed like the kind of “thinkers” I’ve heard on right wing radio-- and I have no idea what Twitter is about or why anyone would want to use it. But it seems like these are the new ways of communicating in the Modern World.

So I wonder, is CSGNet obsolete? Should we be using other media venues to discuss perceptual control theory and related issues? Has the Modern World finally passed me by? I still believe in publishing scholarly research in peer reviewed journals. But CSGNet used to be a great medium for debate, new research ideas and just keeping up with the latest in the field. But it started back in 1990 – so it’s over twenty years old. Is it time to think about changing the medium for the message? I hope there are some young people out there (and some hep older ones too) who are willing to share some ideas about this. If nothing else, maybe someone could tell me why (and how) one would want to use Twitter.

Thanks.

Best regards

Rick

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

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

6

[From Matti Kolu (2013.02.22.1430 CET)]

Rick Marken (2013.02.17.1030)--

is CSGNet -- and email correspondence in general -- old hat?

I started frequenting online forums around 1999 or so. Right now I'm reading
CSGNet using the web interface found at
http://listserv.illinois.edu/archives/csgnet.html so in my mind, CSGNet is
just another discussion board, and not an example of email correspondence
per se.

The major drawback is that the archives go only a year back. Are the old
discussions archived? How much work would required to have them posted
online (unedited at first)? The page "Best of CSGNet"
(http://www.iapct.org/articles/BestOfCSGNet/index.html) consists mostly of
posts from the early 90s. It gives the unfortunate impression that nothing
interesting seems to have been written about PCT on CSGNet during the last
two decades. That is problematic. The 18-23 year olds of today were born
during that period, and the dates of those posts make PCT look like
something that never got anywhere.

Matti

7

[From Rick Marken (2013.02.22.0910)]

Matti Kolu (2013.02.22.1430 CET)–

RM: is CSGNet – and email correspondence in general – old hat?

MK:I started frequenting online forums around 1999 or so. Right now I’m reading CSGNet using the web interface found at

http://listserv.illinois.edu/archives/csgnet.html so in my mind, CSGNet is

just another discussion board, and not an example of email correspondence

per se.

The major drawback is that the archives go only a year back. Are the old

discussions archived?

RM: Yes they are, I believe.I just don’t know where they are. Dag Forssell is the PCT archivist

MK: How much work would required to have them posted

online (unedited at first)? The page “Best of CSGNet”

(http://www.iapct.org/articles/BestOfCSGNet/index.html) consists mostly of

posts from the early 90s. It gives the unfortunate impression that nothing

interesting seems to have been written about PCT on CSGNet during the last

two decades. That is problematic. The 18-23 year olds of today were born

during that period, and the dates of those posts make PCT look like

something that never got anywhere.

RM: Yes, we should put them in an easily accessible place. Indeed, they should be accessible from the main PCT site, pctweb.org.

But there is something to making it difficult to get to the PCT material. If it’s hard then it shows real commitment to PCT. When I got into PCT (back in 1978, when it was still just called control theory) I had to work like crazy to find stuff on PCT; and it was fun because I knew this was exciting stuff and it was kind of like gold mining.

But I guess those born into the internet age are not that enamored with searching through real library archived.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com