[From Rick Marken (930123.1100)]
Avery Andrews (930123.1825)
It might be useful to point out that PCT is basically in the same camp
as the dynamics crowd (yes, Kugler, Turvey, etc.) as opposed to `orthodox'
computational cog. sci, if there actually is such a thing anymore
I liked to be in camps when I was a kid but not so much any more. And
even then, I would NEVER have wanted to be in the Kugler, Turvey etc
camp; I wanted to be in camp to explore, build models and have fun;
that's why I like camp CSG.
I understand the desire to find value in the work of those who are
not PCT modellers but who are working on similar problems (like the
motor control problems of Kugler, Turvey, et at). The downside of
trying to control one's perceptions relative to this desire is
beautifully illustrated in today's contribution to the Devil's
Bibliography. It is a book that Ed Ford suggested that I look at:
M.E. Ford and D. H. Ford (1987) Humans as self constructing living
systems. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
(No relation to Ed, I presume).
I just got a copy yesterday and it is a goldmine for the Devil's
Bibliography. D. Ford seems to be the big theorist here -- taking
us to new horizons in the development of the control model. D. Ford
is actually a modeller in the Carver/Scheier tradition -- diagrams
are all you get. Also like Carver and Scheier he is a happy camper --
he plays contentedly in the camps of Powers, Carver and Scheier, S. Beer
(cybernetics guru), Kugler, et al, Pribram, D. McClelland, Bandura,
Ashby, etc. Quite eclectic. If you read the overview (chapter one) you
might see the problem with this accepting attitude; in order to have it,
you MUST make some glaringly basic mistakes about PCT; M.E. Ford and
D.E. Ford make PLENTY.
Here are some examples for the DB.
"Feedback informaiton enables a system to react to events after they
have occurred. However, for a system to adapt efficiently in a variable
environment, it must also be able to anticipate what is likely to happen
in the future. Most human behavior is anticipary in nature. Anticipatory
actions are accomplished through feedforward processes". p 9
(Making camp cognition people happy).
"Behavior patterns are a function of the informational-behavioral
transations with the environment"
(Making camp information processing happy; maybe camp interactionism
too? nobody's been able to figure out what the kids in that camp actually
DO though -- except be "real scientists").
"Perception is 'direct' and provides accurate information about current
events within and around a person" p. 22
"Human sensori-perceptual capabilities are designed to collect information
useful for GUIDING PRACTICAL ACTION in the physically structured and
dynamically varying terrestrial environment in which humans evolved"
p 22 emphasis mine
(camp info processing and camp JJ Gibson)
There are many others in this chapter but I'm getting nauseous.
To be fair, Ford and Ford say many things about control that SOUND
close to being correct -- or that are correct. But this is the
problem of dealing with people who only deal with control theory as
a set of diagrams and phrases --ie. with people who don't model. It
is possible to take almost ANYTHING they say as a correct description
of a control system.
I think one way to show that Ford and Ford just don't really get it
(no matter how often their words might overlap with PCT words) is
that they NEVER explicitly describe the central fact about living
control systems -- that they control their own PERCEPTION. They talk
all around this but manage to avoid this fact about control and, thus,
all that it implies about what we would want to know about the behavior
of living control systems -- ie. what perceptions they ARE controlling.
Ford and Ford (like all those who don't get PCT) take behavior at face
value -- they assume that what THEY PERCEIVE about the organism's doings
is what the organism IS DOING (controlling). They have quite a way to go;
I'm afraid they (like those in the rest of the camps) think they are
just about there. Too bad.
Best
Rick