[from Jeff Vancouver 990712.1650]
[From Rick Marken (990710.1940)]
Sounds like an interesting study. I will participate. One small issue.
Could one not argue that mouse movements require kinesthetic feedback?
Hence, is the explanation for your results (assuming they work out as
predicted) a function of the level of the perception? Kinesthetic is level
1, cursor position is a higher level?
Sincerely,
Jeff
[From Bruce Gregory (990712.1705 EDT)]
Rick Marken (990712.1300)
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.
I'm glad you brought up this topic. It just so happens that I have a
model....
Bruce Gregory
[From Bruce Gregory (990712.1713 EDT)]
Rick Marken (990712.1300)
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 share your view. This is largely why I have no interest in models of
"coercion". A model of an interaction that some might call coercive
could be very interesting. But a model of an abstraction is only one
step removed from angels and pins.
Bruce Gregory
from [ Marc Abrams (990712.1541) ]
[From Rick Marken (990712.1300)]
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.
Sounds very noble. You can explain the entire world as one large collection
of atoms and say everything else is immaterial. For you that might be ok. I
would not be satisfied with stopping there. The same holds true for the PCT
model. You might be very happy and content with what it already explains.
You might feel that nothing else need to be done. ( I am not trying to be
cute or vacious here ) I am not you. When I read Chap 15 it piqued my
interest. Why?, because as Bill pointed out on pg. 217 "Once it is noticed
that the model lacks this ability ( perceptual remembering and to reproduce
past perceptual situations through actions ) one sees how essential it is".
He then went on explained about some of the problems inherit in fig 15-2 and
showed a couple of examples of what he meant. It seemed reasonable and
plausible. The next question I had was, has this been tested? I came on the
net and asked if in fact this was the current thinking and if in fact there
was anything more current with regard to PCT. I was then further surprised
when I went into the archives and saw _no_ discussions about Bill's
proposals. The same mind that produced the "basic" model produced these
proposals. He emphatically stated that these were in fact ideas, not based
on anything other then thoughts he had on the matter. My thinking was and is
, Gee they ( the proposals ) deserve to be tested. they certainly bring a
new twist to the story. So my question remains. If Bill's initial proposal
the PCT "Control mode" model ) was in fact tested. Why haven't his other
proposals been given the same treatment. That's what I would like to do. Or
at least try to do.
Rick, what comes first the data or the model? How do you know what kind of
data you need? How do you know what your model should look like? What is
your working hypothesis about memory and what does it cover ( i.e.
remembering, imagining, etc. ) Isn't the model a working hypothesis to be
tested and validated? So right now do you have a memory model model or data.
If you do have the memory data, please explain the model or experiment that
generated it.
I am interested in _phenomena_; not models per se. Models are
interesting to me only when they explain (with quantitative
precision) phenomena.
Is memory a part of the phenomenon your interested in?
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.
Don't disagree, but all of this is a lot less interesting without the memory
component
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 was asking for empirical tests. Tests that tested the _4_ proposals not
just the one ( "control mode" ) that has been done a thousand times. I gave
one possible test in a post to Bruce Gregory. I am also looking into the
feasability of doing a litlle bit of modeling. But before _any_ of this is
done I think we need to come to some type of agreement on what the
phenomenon is. Bruce Gregory has brought up an important aspect
( awareness ) How should this be included?
Did you fill in the diagrams? These diagrams will at least put us all on the
same page with regard to what we are talking about. It's not an answer, but
it is a beginning. To those I sent the diagrams to please return the
finished ones to me in a zip file. i will then put them all together and
ship out all of them to everyone who submitted one. It will give us a basis
for dicussion and coming to some type of understanding with regard to Bill's
proposals,
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.
Sorry friend. When _I_ ask _you_ a question and you don't respond to _me_
either privately or publiclly, your ignoring me. I wasn't asking general
questions to the net. Maybe, as someone has suggested to me, my expectations
are to high with regard to communicating on the net. He's probably right.
Marc
[From Rick Marken (990712.2150)]
Me:
Models are interesting to me only when they explain (with
quantitative precision) phenomena...
Bruce Gregory (990712.1713 EDT) --
I share your view. This is largely why I have no interest
in models of "coercion". A model of an interaction that
some might call coercive could be very interesting. But a
model of an abstraction is only one step removed from angels
and pins.
I'm glad you share my view on the role of models in science.
But I think the PCT model of coercoin is, indeed, a model of
a real phenomenon.
The PCT model of coercion is simply a model of a conflict
between a strong and a much weaker control system. This kind
of conflict is easy demonstrated; a coercive conflict occurs
in my "Different Worlds" demo, for example. So coercive
interactions are easily observed phenomena and the PCT model
of two interacting control systems explains this kind of
interaction rather precisely.
What is less easy to demonstrate (for humanitarian reasons) is
coercion using only a "credible threat of force" rather than
direct physical force. In this case, one party to the conflict
behaves in a particular way, not because he is overpowered by
the other party, but because he knows that he _ will be_
prevented (by force) from behaving in any other way. While we
can't demonstrate this kind of coercion in the lab, I think
there is considerable naturalistic evidence that it occurs;
coercion using crediable threat of force (as in slavery) seems
(unfortunately) to be a real phenomenon, don't you think?
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 Rick Marken (990712.2155)]
Jeff Vancouver (990712.1650) --
Sounds like an interesting study. I will participate. One
small issue. Could one not argue that mouse movements require
kinesthetic feedback? Hence, is the explanation for your
results (assuming they work out as predicted) a function of
the level of the perception?
Good point.
I think I have to be careful to pick outputs that are as easily
remembered as the results controlled by these outputs. So, for
example, the outputs might be keypresses and the visual sequence
can be protected from disturbances only by a particular sequence
of keypresses. So a sequence of four key presses (like r, t ,e,
w) might be required to produce a particular sequence of cursor
movements (A, D, C, B). I'll have to work this out.
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 (990713.0214) ]
[From Rick Marken (990712.2230)]
> Did you fill in the diagrams?
No.
Will you?
I think I answered all your question this time. Do you feel
better now?
Yes, thank you for taking the time.
Marc
[From Rick Marken (990712.2230)]
Marc Abrams (990712.1541)
If Bill's initial proposal the PCT "Control mode" model ) was in
fact tested. Why haven't his other proposals been given the same
treatment.
I think one reason is that those of us doing research have
tended to feel that it's important to collect a lot of data on
basic control processes (controlled variables, hierarchical
relationships between these variables, etc) before embarking on
the study of "supporting" processes, like memory and learning.
Another reason is that the memory model is not nearly as complete
as the basic control model. But the main reason may simply be
that it's hard to study memory.
Rick, what comes first the data or the model?
Data (in the form of informal observations or experimnetal
observations) _must_ come before models. Models exist only
to explain what we observe. A model that successfully explains
observations can (and must) be used to predict future
observations (if only to test the model); at that point, the
model does "come first"; you make predictions from the model
and see if you observe what is predicted. But if the model
is "chicken" and data is "egg", then in science, the "egg"
defintely comes first ("Phenomena Phirst!").
Is memory a part of the phenomenon your interested in?
Sure.
Bruce Gregory has brought up an important aspect ( awareness )
How should this be included?
I have no idea.
Did you fill in the diagrams?
No.
I think I answered all your question this time. Do you feel
better now?
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 Bruce Gregory (990713.0650 EDT)]
Rick Marken (990712.2150)
What is less easy to demonstrate (for humanitarian reasons) is
coercion using only a "credible threat of force" rather than
direct physical force. In this case, one party to the conflict
behaves in a particular way, not because he is overpowered by
the other party, but because he knows that he _ will be_
prevented (by force) from behaving in any other way. While we
can't demonstrate this kind of coercion in the lab, I think
there is considerable naturalistic evidence that it occurs;
coercion using credible threat of force (as in slavery) seems
(unfortunately) to be a real phenomenon, don't you think?
Yes, indeed. Much less clear is whether coercion using a credible threat of
force is the appropriate model for any _particular_ action. The mechanism
requires that an autonomous control system have a particular reference level
established by a higher order (system level?) loop controlling a perception
something like "avoid perceiving yourself doing something that is likely to
provoke a punishment." Many children have such a control loop as well as
many slaves. I suppose we should say that children are slaves in this case.
I suppose anyone who lives in an organized social system also qualifies.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (990713.0715)]
Marc:
Did you fill in the diagrams?
Me:
No.
Marc Abrams (990713.0214)
Will you?
I don't think so. When the memory experiment gets done I might
try to develop a model of the memory process. But I've got a
few other higher priority (to me) things to do right now.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Bill Powers (990713.0319 MDT)]
Marc Abrams (990712.1120)--
I said:
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.
Nothing. That was not the subject of the post.
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.
They don't. Passive observation is not controlling; it's observing
passively, and perhaps recording the perceptions, without acting to control
them (like watching a sunset). Imagining is not controlling anything that
anyone else can see, but it leaves higher systems controlling in the usual
way (they don't necessarily know that some of the information they're
getting is imaginary). Automatic operation leaves some lower-level systems
controlling as they are organized to control, but without higher-level
systems, or at least awareness, being involved.
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.
I think you may be confusing what you consider to be an important topic for
investigation with what others consider to be important topics for
investigation. Obviously there seems to be a difference. This shouldn't
discourage you from doing your own investigation.
Nobody seems interested in discussing this, except for a few
private posts with 2 individuals. This baffles me.
People have different interests; what's so hard to understand about that?
You found Chapter 15 particularly useful; apparently not everybody did.
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 ).
It's unlikely that everyone rushed to the bookshelf and re-read Chapter 15
just because of your comments. Haven't you figured out yet that people
don't do what you want them to do just because you want and urge them to do
it? If they did, then you'd be running the show, wouldn't you? But they
don't, and you aren't.
I'd still like
an answer to those questions _from Rick_. But I'm not going to hold my
breath
Good, I would worry about you if you did!
Best,
Bill P.
from [ Marc Abrams (990713.1134) ]
[From Bill Powers (990713.0319 MDT)]
>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.
They don't. Passive observation is not controlling; it's observing
passively, and perhaps recording the perceptions, without acting to
control
them (like watching a sunset). Imagining is not controlling anything that
anyone else can see, but it leaves higher systems controlling in the usual
way (they don't necessarily know that some of the information they're
getting is imaginary). Automatic operation leaves some lower-level systems
controlling as they are organized to control, but without higher-level
systems, or at least awareness, being involved.
OK, so let me restate my position. It seems that in our attempts to control,
some "control" loops are not engaged directly in controlling but can and do
effect what is being controlled by the "control mode" loops. It doesn't
change how something is controlled. It changes what is being controlled.
( Where are the perceptions coming fromYes?
I think you may be confusing what you consider to be an important topic
for
investigation with what others consider to be important topics for
investigation. Obviously there seems to be a difference. This shouldn't
discourage you from doing your own investigation.
It won't. I guess I am more interested in where, what is getting controlled
comes from then others. From an "applied" PCT standpoint I think this is an
important question. I also happen to agree with you ( at least the position
you took in chap 15 ) That the idea that organisms are able to reproduce
past perceptual situations through actions is essential, and that the
control mode model alone cannot account for it.
If we take your proposal that _all reference signals are retrieved
recordings of past perceptual signals_ ( I have seen that advanced on the
net ) seriously. Then we are forced to explain how this happens within the
context of the control mode model. You couldn't. So you devised a first
step in fig 15-2. to change the basic model to account for this. This solved
some of the issues but raised others. So you proposed fig 15-3 and the
modes. So to accept the proposition that reference signals are retrieved
recordings, you must also accept an addressing and memory scheme. I have
seen no others. Does this invalidate the concept of reference signals from
recordings? If it does, it wipes out an awful lot of behavior as we know it.
I guess this is the reason I find it compelling. As with your statement to
me awhile ago " You seem to want to be able to read about it and do it", I
would like others to be interested in it. But I can live without it 
It's unlikely that everyone rushed to the bookshelf and re-read Chapter 15
just because of your comments. Haven't you figured out yet that people
don't do what you want them to do just because you want and urge them to
do
it? If they did, then you'd be running the show, wouldn't you? But they
don't, and you aren't.
I _was_ hoping that some would find it interesting. What bothered me was
_not_ the ignoring of my plea for interest in this matter. That I found
curious. It was the refusal of Rick, after commenting on it to answer
questions I directed at him. It was Isaac, who also refused to answer some
questions directed not at the net but at him. A two line post from either
would have satisfied me. Like F---k off I'm not interested. _that_ I can
deal with. and understand.
Marc
from [Bruce Gregory (990713.1320 EDT)]
Marc Abrams (990713.1134)
OK, so let me restate my position. It seems that in our
attempts to control,
some "control" loops are not engaged directly in controlling
but can and do
effect what is being controlled by the "control mode" loops.
It doesn't
change how something is controlled. It changes what is being
controlled.
I don't understand this statement. Are you talking about changing from
controlling one variable to controlling another? If so, this may be the
result of controlling a sequence. It may also be the case that we
experience a set of error signals associated with controlling a
corresponding set of variables. It may be that the squeaky wheel gets
the oil--that we shift to controlling the variable associate with the
greatest error signal. This would represent an extension of HPCT, but a
fairly modest one, I believe.
Bruce Gregory
from [ Marc Abrams (990713.1433) ]
From [Bruce Gregory (990713.1320 EDT)]
Marc Abrams (990713.1134)
> OK, so let me restate my position. It seems that in our attempts to
control,
> some "control" loops are not engaged directly in controlling but can and
do
> effect what is being controlled by the "control mode" loops. It doesn't
> change how something is controlled. It changes what is being
> controlled.
I don't understand this statement. Are you talking about changing from
controlling one variable to controlling another?
No. With the current model of control, what we perceive is due in part to
what we sense. ( i.e. taste, smell, hear, etc ) and our Reference signals
for each level come from the level above. Are we in agreement about this?
What Bill proposed ( as I interpret it ) in Chap 15 is that _all_
perceptions do not come from the environment ( our sensory organs ) and all
reference levels are not a product of the level above. He hypothesized that
both could and do come from memory. So the question I mis-stated was not
about _how_ control took place. It only takes place one way. It's where
_what_ was being controlled came from. ( Is it real or is it memorex )
As far as the control process is concerned it doesn't matter where it comes
from. As far as it influencing what we attempt to control and how we attempt
to correct errors ( i.e. take action ), I think it makes all the difference
in the world
If so, this may be the
result of controlling a sequence. It may also be the case that we
experience a set of error signals associated with controlling a
corresponding set of variables. It may be that the squeaky wheel gets
the oil--that we shift to controlling the variable associate with the
greatest error signal. This would represent an extension of HPCT, but a
fairly modest one, I believe.
Not unreasonable, but this I beleive speaks to awareness and attention, not
memory usage. yes?
Marc
from [Bruce Gregory (990713.1518 EDT)]
Marc Abrams (990713.1433)
No. With the current model of control, what we perceive is
due in part to
what we sense. ( i.e. taste, smell, hear, etc and our
Reference signals
for each level come from the level above. Are we in agreement
about this?
Yes.
What Bill proposed ( as I interpret it ) in Chap 15 is that _all_
perceptions do not come from the environment ( our sensory
organs ) and all
reference levels are not a product of the level above. He
hypothesized that
both could and do come from memory.
I did not take this as a departure from the basic control model in the
way you did. Signals from "memory" have exactly the same form as signals
from the senses (both are changes in electric potential--neural pulses).
I can tell if a particular signal comes from present time or from
memory, but not by analyzing the pulses. Apparently, where the signals
come from is important in how I interpret them.
So the question I
mis-stated was not
about _how_ control took place. It only takes place one way.
It's where
_what_ was being controlled came from. ( Is it real or is it
memorex)
As far as the control process is concerned it doesn't matter
where it comes
from. As far as it influencing what we attempt to control and
how we attempt
to correct errors ( i.e. take action ), I think it makes all
the difference
in the world.
In my experience, I can imagine controlling a perception and I can use
memory to establish a reference level for a real time perception. Is
this all the difference in the world you are referring to?
Not unreasonable, but this I believe speaks to awareness and
attention, not
memory usage. yes?
What do you mean by "memory usage"? Anything different than imagination
and establishing reference levels (plus simple recall)?
Bruce Gregory
p.s. My wife (Gray Jacobik) is scheduled for a "brief" appearance on All
Things Considered tonight. They are playing a recording of her reading
one of her poems at the Sunken Garden two weeks ago. (Shameless Plug)
from [ Marc Abrams (990713.1619) ]
From [Bruce Gregory (990713.1518 EDT)]
> What Bill proposed ( as I interpret it ) in Chap 15 is that _all_
> perceptions do not come from the environment ( our sensory
> organs ) and all
> reference levels are not a product of the level above. He
> hypothesized that
> both could and do come from memory.I did not take this as a departure from the basic control model in the
way you did. Signals from "memory" have exactly the same form as signals
from the senses (both are changes in electric potential--neural pulses).
yes, no question about it.
I can tell if a particular signal comes from present time or from
memory,
Hopefully
but not by analyzing the pulses. Apparently, where the signals
come from is important in how I interpret them.
Yes. I think this is important for the reasons stated below
> So the question I mis-stated was not about _how_ control took place. It
only takes place one
> way. It's where _what_ was being controlled came from. ( Is it real or
is it memorex )
> As far as the control process is concerned it doesn't matter where it
comes
> from. As far as it influencing what we attempt to control and how we
attempt
> to correct errors ( i.e. take action ), I think it makes all the
difference in the world.
In my experience, I can imagine controlling a perception and I can use
memory to establish a reference level for a real time perception. Is
this all the difference in the world you are referring to?
Yes.
Me:
> Not unreasonable, but this I believe speaks to awareness and attention,
not
> memory usage. yes?
What do you mean by "memory usage"? Anything different than imagination
and establishing reference levels (plus simple recall)?
No.
Bruce Gregory
And where might one find _All Things Considered_. I'm not a big TV watcher.
p.s. My wife (Gray Jacobik) is scheduled for a "brief" appearance on All
Things Considered tonight. They are playing a recording of her reading
one of her poems at the Sunken Garden two weeks ago. (Shameless Plug)
Marc
[From rick Marken (990713.1530)]
Bruce Gregory (990713.1518 EDT)
p.s. My wife (Gray Jacobik) is scheduled for a "brief"
appearance on All Things Considered tonight.
My wife (Linda Westerschulte), a poetry lover who listens to
All Things Considered every evening, is now scheduled to listen
to your wife read her poetry. Thanks for the tip.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken