Catechism

from [ Marc Abrams (990709.1625) ]

Isaac. In doing a little reflection on [i.kurtzer (990709.1500) ] I have a
few questions. These are intended to help me explore _my_ thoughts about
this. If you want to answer, I would appreciate it. If your going to treat
it as a challenge to you, forget about it and don't waste the bandwidth.

Was B:CP a catechism when it was first published?

If so, when did it stop being a catechism? Was it after Tom's work?, After
Rick's?

How many tests & what kind, need to be done before something is considered
to be "looked at critically". Is there a standard you believe in?

Would you consider belief in the Bible to be a catechism? ( meaning, that
although you might have looked at it "critically", could you in fact produce
tests to verify it? )

Finally, I agree with the thrust of your remark. I do not think _anything_
should be taken for granted. I believe my post From [ Marc Abrams
(990707.1019) ] Spoke to this. The point I was trying to make in starting
the post with "Without looking at B:CP" was to try an emphasize the
importance _I_ felt. These proposals were and are not _side_ issues. The
"basic control" mode is one of four modes that Bill proposed to explain
behavior. Three of them have been unexplored.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (990710.1000)]

Marc Abrams (990709.1625)--

Was B:CP a catechism when it was first published?

No. A catchechism is a memorized set of answers to questions.
B:CP is a _testable_ model of the processes reponsible for
the behavior of living systems. I think isaac was suggesting
that many people have taken B:CP as a catechism rather than
as a basis for research and that this is very unfortunate (and
I emphatically agree with him). In fact, other than tests of the
model described in a few published papers by Bill, Tom and
myself that snuck into the conventional psychological literature,
there have been virtually no published tests of the PCT model
by conventional psychologists since the publication of B:CP
in about 1973. I think the overwhelming lack of scientific interest
in PCT (ie. lack of research that tests PCT) by the conventional
behavioral science community is the really _big_ story for anyone
intersted in the (immediate) future of PCT.

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

from [ Marc Abrams (990710.1410) ]

[From Rick Marken (990710.1000)]

Marc Abrams (990709.1625)--

> Was B:CP a catechism when it was first published?

No. A catchechism is a memorized set of answers to questions.

Oh, my understanding is that a catechism is the acceptance of facts without
critical inquiry. I really didn't know what Isaac was responding to in my
post. You have possibly clarified the difference in how we define catechism.
Thank you. I simply suggested that Bill's proposals were worthy of testing
and exploration. ( I might have done so emphaticlly, but that is due to my
enthusiasim for the possiblities, not the "fact" that I have uncovered new
truths. )

B:CP is a _testable_ model of the processes reponsible for
the behavior of living systems. I think isaac was suggesting
that many people have taken B:CP as a catechism rather than
as a basis for research and that this is very unfortunate (and
I emphatically agree with him).

So do I. But Isaac was _responding_ to my post as if I said or infered
something different. I wasn't interested in who had the different "modes"
memorized. I wanted to know who actually had some "knowledge" about these
modes, or understood the significance of the proposals.

In fact, other than tests of the
model described in a few published papers by Bill, Tom and
myself that snuck into the conventional psychological literature,
there have been virtually no published tests of the PCT model
by conventional psychologists since the publication of B:CP
in about 1973. I think the overwhelming lack of scientific interest
in PCT (ie. lack of research that tests PCT) by the conventional
behavioral science community is the really _big_ story for anyone
intersted in the (immediate) future of PCT.

What's your point? Is there something new here you haven't said a thousand
times?

Marc

[From Bruce Gregory (990710.1545 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990710.1240)

Q: Why did God make you?

A: God made me to know, love and serve him in this world and
be happy with him in the next.

Q: What is a sacrament?

A: A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to
give grace

Q: What is a memory?

A: A memory is a reference signal replayed through the input
perceptual function.

I remember the first two items very well, but I must have been elsewhere
when the third was covered. Just my luck. Think of how much sooner I might
have seen the light.

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (990710.1240)]

Marc Abrams (990709.1625)--

Was B:CP a catechism when it was first published?

Me:

No. A catchechism is a memorized set of answers to questions.

Marc Abrams (990710.1410)

Oh, my understanding is that a catechism is the acceptance
of facts without critical inquiry.

You understanding if basically correct, too. The reason people have
kids do the catechism is to get them to accept certain _beliefs_
(not facts) without critical inquiry. The beliefs to be accepted
uncritically are the answers to the questions of the catechism.
For example,

Q: Why did God make you?

be happy with him in the next.

Q: What is a sacrement?

give grace

Q: What is a memory?

perceptual function.

You have possibly clarified the difference in how we define
catechism. Thank you.

One of the _many_ benefits of having a (recovering) Catholic
wife.

What's your point? Is there something new here you haven't
said a thousand times?

Nothing. Just out for my morning windmill tilt.

Best

Rick

···

A: God made me to know, love and serve him in this world and
A: A sacrement is an outward sign instituted by Christ to
A: A memory is a reference signal replayed through the input
---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

from [ Marc Abrams (990710.1631) ]

[From Rick Marken (990710.1240)]

You understanding if basically correct, too. The reason people have
kids do the catechism is to get them to accept certain _beliefs_
(not facts) without critical inquiry. The beliefs to be accepted
uncritically are the answers to the questions of the catechism.

I did not intend to say "facts". I intended to say "ideas". No problem. But
aren't all the knowledge/beliefs/values we have "memorized". Whether those
knowledge/beliefs/values have been "looked at critically" ( whatever that
means ) is another matter.

Maybe dogma is a better word to use. I think that word fits in better with
your examples.

Q: What is a memory?

A: A memory is a reference signal replayed through the input
perceptual function.

It isn't _what_ memory is that intrigues me. It's what _effect_ is has on
the control process that
makes things real interesting.

Btw, is the above definition applicable for "automatic mode". It's my
understanding that in automatic mode the perceptual signal goes into memory
but a copy does not go to a higher level. You have lower level perceptions
"feeding" a given higher level ( the one in automatic mode )with perceptual
signals. The level in automatic mode channels those perceptual signals into
memory that goes into the comparator. A level in automatic mode stops
perceptual signals from going to higher levels. That makes us "unaware" of
what might be happening at levels below the one that is in automatic mode.
Am I mistaken in my understanding? If so can you please explain specifically
explain where my thinking is wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance :slight_smile:

> What's your point? Is there something new here you haven't
> said a thousand times?

Nothing. Just out for my morning windmill tilt.

No Problem. We all need to vent. I thought you might have had a specific
reason for making those statements.

Marc

[From Bruce Gregory (990710.1825 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990700.1430)]

Yes. The point, of course, is that none of these answers shed
light on anything if they are just repeated as dogma. The light
comes from empirical test. The first two answers can't be
empirically tested, and, thus, can't shed any light on anything.
But the last one can.

I think of beliefs as the solution of problems. We believe whatever we
believe because not to believe it would leave us with a persisting error.
The first two beliefs solve a very different kind of problem than the third.
The third belief must be tested empirically because the kind of problem it
solves is empirical.

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (990700.1430)]

Me:

Q: Why did God make you?

A: God made me to know, love and serve him in this world and
be happy with him in the next.

Q: What is a sacrament?

A: A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to
give grace

Q: What is a memory?

A: A memory is a reference signal replayed through the input
perceptual function.

Bruce Gregory (990710.1545 EDT)--

I remember the first two items very well, but I must have been
elsewhere when the third was covered. Just my luck. Think of how
much sooner I might have seen the light.

Yes. The point, of course, is that none of these answers shed
light on anything if they are just repeated as dogma. The light
comes from empirical test. The first two answers can't be
empirically tested, and, thus, can't shed any light on anything.
But the last one can.

I think issac was encouraging us to present proposals for
empirical tests of Bill's hypotheses about how memory and
imagination work. Such tests could, indeed, shed some light
on these phenomena.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

from [ Marc Abrams (990710.1757) ]

[From Rick Marken (990700.1430)]

I think issac was encouraging us to present proposals for
empirical tests of Bill's hypotheses about how memory and
imagination work. Such tests could, indeed, shed some light
on these phenomena.

And what am I asking for? Who brought up the issues raised in Chap 15?

If in fact that was his intent why not just say so? He chose to nit about a
statement I made without bothering to verify with me if in fact that was the
idea I was trying to communicate. As it turns out his initial reaction was
misplaced ( if we chose to take your statement as his ) I asked him a few
questions and he chose not waste the bandwidth. Instead, you come on and
tell us what you think Isaac means. Isaac is a big boy. He can tell us what
he thinks anytime he chooses. He did not come on the net with _any_
constructive comments about Chap 15. He made a very nice post in reply to
Jeff V.

In fact he came on and said "I don't know the modes. I will when someone
has done the research. Until then I don't see any need to consider BCP a
catechism Martin Taylor has 12 logical possibilities of how a cluster of
ECUs can be modified. I haven't memorized that
either."

Very constructive. I don't read the same intent into his comments as you do.
Sounds to me like an "in your face" attitude. He had similar "constructive"
comments about my SD-MOL proposal. I am glad he chooses not to waste
bandwidth on more "constructive" posts with regard to proposals I make. For
some reason, unknown to me this seems to have taken a personal twist. I
don't have a clue as to why, and Isaac refuses to communicate with me about
it. Little I can or want to do about it. I guess Bruce Gregory's comments
about respect apply here. Unfortunate.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (990710.1940)]

Me:

I think issac was encouraging us to present proposals for
empirical tests of Bill's hypotheses about how memory and
imagination work. Such tests could, indeed, shed some light
on these phenomena.

Marc Abrams (990710.1757)--

And what am I asking for?

Assuming the answer is "proposals for empirical tests of
Bill's hypotheses about how memory and imagination work"
then I'll give it a shot. But I want to start by hedging a
bit; my feeling is that it's going to be difficult to come
up with good experiments to test the memory, imagination,
and learning aspects of the PCT model until we have a much
larger base of research on basic control process.

But there is a fairly large base of research on at least
one kind of control process: manual tracking. Here is one
possible experiment; it tests the notion that what is stored
in memory is a perceptual signal, not an output signal
(B:CP Fig 15.2).

Have a subject keep the cursor aligned with a sequence of
4 cursor positions. Call the positions 1, 2, 3 and 4. On each
trial the target occurs for a couple seconds in a different
sequence of positions: 1,2,3,4 or 1,3,4,2 or 1,2,1,3 or
whatever; the subject is to keep the cursor under each target
position that appears. The cursor is being subject to continuous
disturbance while this is being done. The subject must move a
mouse (output) appropriately to keep the cursor (perception)
controlled (aligned under each target position).

After each trial the subject is asked to reproduce the sequence
of cursor positions _or_ the pattern of mouse movements that
was just produced. I believe that the PCT memory model predicts
that the subject will always reproduce (from memory) the sequence
of cursor positions (prior perception) perfectly and the pattern
of mouse movements (the outputs used to produce these perceptions)
poorly.

In order to make the perception and "output" memory tasks
equally difficult, I would have the disturbance be a square
wave (having only possible values like 100, 50, -50 and -100
in pixel units) that forces the subject (if s/he is controlling
cursor position) to move the mouse one way and then another, so
that the pattern of mouse movements is -100, -50, 50 , 100 or
-100, 100, -50, 50 or whatever. So there would be only four
possible mouse movements (outputs) to remember, just as there
are only four possible cursor positions (perceptions) to remember.

Does this sound reasonable?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

from [ Marc Abrams (990710.2327) ]

First, you are absolutely _infuriating_. ( at least your consistent :slight_smile: ) I
asked you a question about automatic mode. Can you please give me an answer
to the question. _I_ asked.

[From Rick Marken (990710.1940)]

But there is a fairly large base of research on at least
one kind of control process: manual tracking. Here is one
possible experiment; it tests the notion that what is stored
in memory is a perceptual signal, not an output signal
(B:CP Fig 15.2).

Does this sound reasonable?

I think it might be helpful for you to review Chap 15. What is stored in
memory depends on the "mode" of the control loop. In "Control and Passive
Observation modes" this is the case. In "Imagination & Automatic modes" this
is not the case.

According to Bill on pg. 219 Fig 15.2 is an inappropriate example. According
to Bill, the diagram (Fig 15.2) shows that the recorded information gets
superimposed on present-time perceptions, which is the wrong prediction
for his example ). "and it also initiates control actions by demanding
perception of the girl in present time. While that might occur, it need not:
our model so far _forces_ ( Bill italisized ) action to occur every time a
person remembers, another wrong prediction. ( From me, This is when the
model is in "Control mode", the mode that is used exclusively to currently
represent the control process. ) What really happens is that we experience a
visual memory of the girl in the red dress _at the expense of present-time
perception_. ( again, Bill italisized )"...
"We remember _instead_ of perceiving and _instead_ of acting, or at least we
may consider those as limiting cases".
"Keeping that problem in mind, let us consider another. If every behavior is
directed by reference signals from memory, why do we not perceive memories
every time we act?"...

I believe this conjecture is not an accurate one based on the above.

After each trial the subject is asked to reproduce the sequence
of cursor positions _or_ the pattern of mouse movements that
was just produced. I believe that the PCT memory model predicts
that the subject will always reproduce (from memory) the sequence
of cursor positions (prior perception) perfectly and the pattern
of mouse movements (the outputs used to produce these perceptions)
poorly.

PCT does not have a single memory model. _What_ a PCT memory model will
predict depends upon the patterns of interacting control loops and the
various "modes" each loop might be in. This is _not_ to say that these
"patterns" are either random or arbitrary. Different combinations will
provide different effects. Bill touch's on a few of the possibilities in the
Chapter. But _much_ work needs to be done.

I also believe that in investigating the various mode combinations, we will
get some better insights into the nature of the hierarchy and CV's. As I
said to Jeff yesterday. I believe these combinations can be modeled in
Vensim. This will only be feasible if we make certain conjectures about the
properties of the levels and CV's involved. It will be difficult but not
impossible modeling projects.

But before we entertain the notion of model building I think we need to have
our feet firmly planted on the ground about our understanding of Bill's
proposals and maybe one or two others that might be appropriate. Martin
Taylor, are you out there :-). To that end Rick, I am going to send you a
*.gif file the represents a 3 level model. The first level has appropriate
arrows. The 2nd and 3rd levels have no arrows. Please fill in the arrows as
you interpret them to be from Chap. 15. Make one page ( diagram ) one mode.
If anyone else is interested I would be happy to e-mail the basic diagram to
you. let me know.

Marc

Marc

[From Bill Powers (990711.0617 MDT)]

Rick Marken (990710.1940)--

But there is a fairly large base of research on at least
one kind of control process: manual tracking. Here is one
possible experiment; it tests the notion that what is stored
in memory is a perceptual signal, not an output signal
(B:CP Fig 15.2).

Have a subject keep the cursor aligned with a sequence of
4 cursor positions. Call the positions 1, 2, 3 and 4. On each
trial the target occurs for a couple seconds in a different
sequence of positions: 1,2,3,4 or 1,3,4,2 or 1,2,1,3 or
whatever; the subject is to keep the cursor under each target
position that appears. The cursor is being subject to continuous
disturbance while this is being done. The subject must move a
mouse (output) appropriately to keep the cursor (perception)
controlled (aligned under each target position).

etc.

Excellent suggestion. It's funny how much more interesting the conversation
gets when real experiments that someone could actually do are proposed. I
have another suggestion: write this up as a stand-alone PC or Mac program
(or both) and pass it around to people who promise to run the experiment
with at least two subjects and send you the results.

I did another experiment with some similar elements, not concerning
sequences but definitely concerning whether people learn to produce outputs
or to control inputs. This one was published in

Levine, R. L. and Fitzgerald, H. E., Editors (1992) Analysis of dynamic
psychological systems, Vol. 2; Chapter 13: A cognitive control system. p.
327-340.(New York: Plenum Press)

This experiment involves using a mouse to move a cursor to point to the
right answer to an arithmetic problem. Numbers from 0 to 22 are listed down
the right side of the screen. On the left, a problem such as "7 -3 = ?" is
presented. The subject moves the cursor up or down to the answer (here 4)
and holds it there until the computer beeps to indicate the correct answer
(after a delay of 1 second). A series of 50 problems is presented, once
during the first experimental condition, and again during the second
experimental condition.

In the first experimental condition, the mouse position directly affects
the cursor position. Thus whenever the participant makes the cursor point
to a particular number, the mouse and the arm that moves it come to the
same position. Under these conditions it could be said that the subject
learns a motor act that provides the right answer to each question, just as
if the answer were being "emitted" using writing or speaking muscles.
Learning how to answer the question could be viewed as learning to emit the
right response to the stimulus provided by the written problem.

The results of the first experiment appear to bear out this interpretation.
The first figure is a plot of the handle position that corresponds to the
answer pointed to by the cursor for each trial. The plotted points lie
exactly along a straight diagonal line, showing that the mouse position
corresponds exactly to the right answer on each trial. The correlation of
mouse position with the correct answer is 1.00.

In the second experiment, the conditions are exactly the same except that a
disturbance is applied to the cursor position along with the effect of the
mouse position. Now the position of the cursor that is used to indicate the
right answer is determined by the sum of the mouse position and the
magnitude of a disturbance.

The program is set up so that for each problem, a random disturbance with a
magnitude between 0 and 22 is generated first; then an arithmetic problem
is constructed such that the mouse position required to indicate the right
answer will correspond to this randomly selected number.

Results: After 50 such problems have been generated and the answer
indicated, a second plot of handle position versus right number is drawn.
Now, of course, the plot is a random scatter, exactly as random as the
series of random disturbances generated for each problem. In a very long
series of problems, the correlation of handle position with right answer
would be guaranteed to approach 0.00.

This proves without a doubt that a person does not learn to emit a series
of actions as answers to arithmetic problems, but learns to control
perceptions of the right answers, altering actions exactly as required to
make the perception match the right answer.

I'm going to post this PC program on my FTP page with a link from my Web
page (www.frontier.net/~powers_w). This version has only 20 trials per
position, to save the participant from terminal boredom. The name of the
self-extracting zipped program file will be lrn.exe. Download to its own
directory, then run it to expand it. The runnable program will be
plenum.exe (named after the publisher).

P.S. Important note: after each plot, tap the space bar to go on.
PPS: The web page and ftp page are updated.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (990711.1610)]

Bill Powers (990711.0617 MDT)

It's funny how much more interesting the conversation gets when
real experiments that someone could actually do are proposed.

Apparently, this is not a universal sentiment;-)

I have another suggestion: write this up as a stand-alone PC
or Mac program (or both) and pass it around to people who
promise to run the experiment with at least two subjects
and send you the results.

I will write it up; I'll try to have it for the meeting.

I did another experiment with some similar elements, not
concerning sequences but definitely concerning whether
people learn to produce outputs or to control inputs.

Yes. That might be a good model for this one; the emphasis
in mine is on whether people _remember_ the outputs they produce
or the inputs they control (or both).

Bruce Nevin (990711.1323 EDT) --

Sounds like a good experiment to me.

Thanks. I will consider all of your suggestions. This is
obviously just a first shot at research on memory from a
PCT perspective; we don't know much about memory yet so this
might provide a framework for some iterative development
of the memory component of the PCT model.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

from [ Marc Abrams (990711.1924) ]

[From Rick Marken (990711.1610)]

Bill Powers (990711.0617 MDT)

> It's funny how much more interesting the conversation gets when
> real experiments that someone could actually do are proposed.

Apparently, this is not a universal sentiment;-)

Gee, I wonder who disagree's :-). Funny, how I don't see you mentioning
anything about _why_ I disagree. And if my ideas are incorrect, _why_ they
are incorrect. What a terrific learning environment. This list _is_ about
"learning", isn't it?

Bill:

> I have another suggestion: write this up as a stand-alone PC
> or Mac program (or both) and pass it around to people who
> promise to run the experiment with at least two subjects
> and send you the results.

Bill, did I misquote you? If so, why haven't you corrected me? Did I
misunderstand something you wrote? If so why not correct me? I am at a loss,
in trying to understand why I am getting the silent treatment. But don't
bother responding. You don't seem to respond well when you don't feel
comfortable doing so, and for whatever reason, you have not responded.

I will write it up; I'll try to have it for the meeting.

> I did another experiment with some similar elements, not
> concerning sequences but definitely concerning whether
> people learn to produce outputs or to control inputs.

Do you mean learning to produce outputs that are then used in the input
function? If so, how do you distinguish between "producing outputs" or
"controling inputs". If not this, then aren't you testing to see if the
"produced outputs" are open loop? If I am wrong, can you please explain how?
Can you also please tell me what this has to do with the proposed modes in
Chap 15, and which modes are involved in this experiment?

Yes. That might be a good model for this one; the emphasis
in mine is on whether people _remember_ the outputs they produce
or the inputs they control (or both).

For a scientist you use words rather loosely. What does "emphasis" in this
context mean? What would the significance of the results be? What would you
be able to predict at the end of the experiment?

Thanks. I will consider all of your suggestions. This is
obviously just a first shot at research on memory from a
PCT perspective; we don't know much about memory yet so this
might provide a framework for some iterative development
of the memory component of the PCT model.

Funny, Hans Blum once accused Bill and Rick of having a "if it's not
invented here, I am not interested" approach. Sounds like you just came down
from the mountain Rick with this idea to look at memory. Gee, why didn't I
think of that?

Marc

[From Bill Powers (990712.0737 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (990711.1924)--

Gee, I wonder who disagree's :-). Funny, how I don't see you mentioning
anything about _why_ I disagree. And if my ideas are incorrect, _why_ they
are incorrect. What a terrific learning environment. This list _is_ about
"learning", isn't it?

No problem with your comments; just triage as I get ready to leave (Wed
morning) for the meeting.

Do you mean learning to produce outputs that are then used in the input
function? If so, how do you distinguish between "producing outputs" or
"controlling inputs".

Of course we use outputs to produce inputs as you know. But in this
experiment the output required is different every time the same input (the
right answer) is to be produced. For example, if the answer is 9 for two
different problems (or even the same problem presented twice), the first
time the mouse might have to be at the bottom of the pad, and the next time
at the top of the pad. So there's no way to learn, for future reference,
where the mouse should be moved to answer any specific problem (this refers
to part 2 of the experiment).

This proves that learning to solve an arithmetic problem is not a matter of
responding in a particular way to a particular stimulus (like "2 + 8 = ?").
It's a matter of working out, internally, what the answer should be (that
is, perceiving the thought "10"), and then using muscles to create a
perception (of "10"). The muscles used may operate differently each time,
because of external disturbances, but the same answer will be created by
using different outputs.

If I am wrong, can you please explain how?
Can you also please tell me what this has to do with the proposed modes in
Chap 15, and which modes are involved in this experiment?

As I said on the phone, I'm leaving the "modes" and other such research
problems to all the young active inegenious minds out there in CSG-land. I
had my say on this subject in 1973 and haven't done anything to improve it
since.

Yes. That might be a good model for this one; the emphasis
in mine is on whether people _remember_ the outputs they produce
or the inputs they control (or both).

For a scientist you use words rather loosely.

That wasn't my post, was it?

Best,

Bill P.

[from Jeff Vancouver 990712.1010]

From [ Marc Abrams (990710.2327) ]

But before we entertain the notion of model building I think we need to have
our feet firmly planted on the ground about our understanding of Bill's
proposals and maybe one or two others that might be appropriate. Martin
Taylor, are you out there :-). To that end Rick, I am going to send you a
*.gif file the represents a 3 level model. The first level has appropriate
arrows. The 2nd and 3rd levels have no arrows. Please fill in the arrows as
you interpret them to be from Chap. 15. Make one page ( diagram ) one mode.
If anyone else is interested I would be happy to e-mail the basic diagram to
you. let me know.

I would like to take a look.

Jeffrey B. Vancouver
Department of Psychology
Ohio University
223 Porter Hall
Athens, OH 45701
phone: 740-593-1071
fax: 740-593-0579
vancouve@oak.cats.ohiou.edu

···

At 12:41 AM 7/11/99 -0400, you wrote:

[From Rick Marken (990712.0850)]

Me:

Yes. That might be a good model for this one; the emphasis
in mine is on whether people _remember_ the outputs they produce
or the inputs they control (or both).

Marc Abrams (990711.1924)

For a scientist you use words rather loosely. What does
"emphasis" in this context mean?

Special consideration or stress.

What would the significance of the results be?

Good question. First, if I could get this published as a memory
experiment it would be a sneaky way of showing conventional
psychologists that there is an important distinction to be made
between behavioral _acts_ and _results_. When you ask people
"what did you do" you have to understand that "doing" involves
producing intended _results_ by variable _acts_. This experiment
will look to see if there is any difference in people's ability
to recall what they "did", ie. what results they produced versus
which acts were used to produce those results. Second, I think
the data could inform the development of a model of the system
that controls aspects of the memory process. One aspect of
memory is "change of mode"; the "changes in the switch settings"
described in B:CP. Note that the memory model in B:CP says
nothing about how these switches are changed; Moreover, the
model says nothing about _how_ perceptions to be replayed
(remembered) are selected or retrieved. I think we need data
to inform the development of the PCT memory model.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

from [ Marc Abrams (990712.1120) ]

[From Bill Powers (990712.0737 MDT)]

First, let me thank you for responding. The post was directed and intended
for Rick. I appreciate you picking up the ball.

Me:

>Do you mean learning to produce outputs that are then used in the input
>function? If so, how do you distinguish between "producing outputs" or
>"controlling inputs".

Bill:

Of course we use outputs to produce inputs as you know. But in this
experiment the output required is different every time the same input (the
right answer) is to be produced. For example, if the answer is 9 for two
different problems (or even the same problem presented twice), the first
time the mouse might have to be at the bottom of the pad, and the next

time

at the top of the pad. So there's no way to learn, for future reference,
where the mouse should be moved to answer any specific problem (this

refers

to part 2 of the experiment).

This proves that learning to solve an arithmetic problem is not a matter

of

responding in a particular way to a particular stimulus (like "2 + 8 =

?").

It's a matter of working out, internally, what the answer should be (that
is, perceiving the thought "10"), and then using muscles to create a
perception (of "10"). The muscles used may operate differently each time,
because of external disturbances, but the same answer will be created by
using different outputs.

No problem, but is this ground breaking news? I'm not sure what this has to
do with your proposals in Chapter 15. My questions did not question the
validity of the control model. My questions, based on Chapter 15, are
concerned with how your proposed modes "change" the _way_ we control things.
Maybe I am reading to much into this but your proposals seemed like
"alternative" methods to the "basic" control process. I thought and still
think that this is worthy of exploration. Others might have different ideas
about how memory works in the control model. I was and am interested in
trying to explore some of these possibilites. Although talk may be cheap,
it's the first step we need to take, in first, trying to define what it is
we are actually talking about. We need to come to some type of agreement on
_what_ it is we are exploring and the kind of data that we would need to
validate the exploration and any discoveries.. This requires some
discussion. Nobody seems interested in discussing this, except for a few
private posts with 2 individuals. This baffles me. Bill, I don't know if
your proposals are right or wrong. I do think they provide a _reasonable and
plausable_ place from which to start. Others may have differing views.
Terrific. That's what I would like to talk about. How we interpret what you
have done and what others might in fact feel on their own. For me and my
interests, it is an imperative question. What effects does memory have on
the control process.? ( a rhetorical question here ). I am disappointed that
more people are not interested and frustrated at being "ignored" ( at least
my questions about Chap. 15 were being ignored ).

Me:

>If I am wrong, can you please explain how?
>Can you also please tell me what this has to do with the proposed modes

in

>Chap 15, and which modes are involved in this experiment?

Bill:

As I said on the phone, I'm leaving the "modes" and other such research
problems to all the young active inegenious minds out there in CSG-land. I
had my say on this subject in 1973 and haven't done anything to improve it
since.

Again, this was directed at Rick and his proposed experiment. I'd still like
an answer to those questions _from Rick_. But I'm not going to hold my
breath :slight_smile:

Rick:

>> Yes. That might be a good model for this one; the emphasis
>> in mine is on whether people _remember_ the outputs they produce
>> or the inputs they control (or both).

me:

>For a scientist you use words rather loosely.

Bill

That wasn't my post, was it?

No, It was Rick's and directed at his use of the word "emphasis" in the
statement above.

Enjoy your extended vacation both to and from the CSG conference.

Marc

from [ Marc Abrams (990712.1246) ]

[From Rick Marken (990712.0850)]

> What would the significance of the results be?

Good question. First, if I could get this published as a memory
experiment it would be a sneaky way of showing conventional

I think that's one of the reason's i got my dander up. I was asking
questions about _specific_ issues raised in Chap 15 and you come back with a
"sneaky way of showing conventional psychologists that there is an important
distinction between behavioral _acts_ and _results_ ... "

In other words, a backdoor approach to "showing" the convential PCT model.
Do you think that you answered my questions with that post? Do you think you
addressed _any_ of the issues I raised about Bill's proposals? No, you
simply _ignored_ them. Why?. Is it such a crime to say _I don't know_, or
even to say _I am not interested_. Convention on the web says, that when
someone makes a _statement_ you agree with, you don't respond. You might
also do this if you have no interest in communicating with the other party.
But when someone asks a _question_, any question, and you don't respond,
That is, _any_ response it shows a lack of class.

psychologists that there is an important distinction to be made
between behavioral _acts_ and _results_. When you ask people
"what did you do" you have to understand that "doing" involves
producing intended _results_ by variable _acts_. This experiment
will look to see if there is any difference in people's ability
to recall what they "did", ie. what results they produced versus
which acts were used to produce those results.

What modes or theories of memory incorporation into the PCT model are you
proposing? Are you sticking with fig. 15-2 in B:CP. If so, Bill has said
that this diagram is _not_ useful. Why do you think it is? This experiment
is intended to show closed, rather then open loop behavior. What do the
results tell us about _how_ memory _effects_ the control process?

Second, I think

the data could inform the development of a model of the system
that controls aspects of the memory process. One aspect of
memory is "change of mode"; the "changes in the switch settings"
described in B:CP. Note that the memory model in B:CP says
nothing about how these switches are changed; Moreover, the
model says nothing about _how_ perceptions to be replayed
(remembered) are selected or retrieved. I think we need data
to inform the development of the PCT memory model.

Thank you. Now you are speaking of fig 15-3. Now you are addressing some of
_your_ concerns about chap 15. Great start. You seem to be interested in a
bottom up approch. I think it might be easier from the top. Got anything
specifically in mind with regard to these questions? I agree with you
completly. Any thoughts on how to begin? Did you fill in the diagrams? These
might prove to be a helpful start. At least we would all agree on _How_ the
Phenomenon effects the control process.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (990712.1300)]

Me:

Second, I think the data could inform the development of a model
of the system that controls aspects of the memory process.

Marc Abrams (990712.1246)--

Thank you. Now you are speaking of fig 15-3. Now you are
addressing some of _your_ concerns about chap 15. Great start.
You seem to be interested in a bottom up approch. I think it
might be easier from the top.

I am not interested in a top down or bottom up approach to model
development. I interested data-based model development. I'm not
particularly interested in discussing the details of B:CP
fig 15-3 (or any other aspect of Bill's memory model); I am
interested in discussing the data that the model explains. I
am interested in _phenomena_; not models per se. Models are
interesting to me only when they explain (with quantitative
precision) phenomena. PCT is interesting to me only because it
explains the phenomenon of purposeful behavior; it also explains
why purposeful behavior can _appear_ to be a response to stimulation,
an action selected by consequences or an output generated on the
basis of a cognitive map or plan.

I thought that you, too, were interested in looking at data. When
I said:

I think issac was encouraging us to present proposals for
empirical tests of Bill's hypotheses about how memory and
imagination work.

You answered with:

And what am I asking for?

I thought you were rhetorically saying that what you were asking
for is proposals for empirical tests of Bill's model of how memory
works; so I gave such a proposal. If you don't like my proposal
(and you don't seem to) then why not suggest an alternative?

I am not ignoring you. I am ignoring a discussion of a model
of memory that is not based on data. Such discussions are as
interesting to me as discussions about the number of angels
that can dance on the head of a pin.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken