Chaotic Control

From [Marc Abrams (2004.05.08.1044)]

[From Peter Small (2004.05.08)]

>>Brain imaging techniques seem to support the view that perceptions
>>take the form of attractors rather than be the product of a control
>>system as visualized in PCT.

Actually, what they are finding in research is chaotic control systems.

Take a look at some recent research from Llinas.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/22/13064.pdf

The problem here is as Boss man pointed out, Each of us has a very nice
theory as to how things work, and most of the explanations are somewhat
reasonable. The empirical evidence to date supports _no_ one current
theory.

Marc

Considering how often throughout history even intelligent people have
been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people who
are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something
different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.

Being smart is what keeps some people from being intelligent.

Thomas Sowell

[From Peter Small (2004.05.08)]

Marc,

Your reference is to the neural architecture for movement control.
You would expect this to act like a regular control system even
though it is based upon attractors.

The discussion here is about about perceptions and how the brain
extracts meaning from sensory signals.

A very good article that illustrates this concept is an October 1993
article in Scientific American: "Simulating brain damage"
http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/~plaut/papers/abstracts/HintonPlautShallice93SciAm.simBrainDam.html

Peter Small

Author of: Lingo Sorcery, Magical A-Life Avatars, The Entrepreneurial
Web, The Ultimate Game of Strategy and Web Presence
http://www.stigmergicsystems.com

···

From [Marc Abrams (2004.05.08.1044)]

[From Peter Small (2004.05.08)]

>>Brain imaging techniques seem to support the view that perceptions
>>take the form of attractors rather than be the product of a control
>>system as visualized in PCT.

Actually, what they are finding in research is chaotic control systems.

Take a look at some recent research from Llinas.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/22/13064.pdf

The problem here is as Boss man pointed out, Each of us has a very nice
theory as to how things work, and most of the explanations are somewhat
reasonable. The empirical evidence to date supports _no_ one current
theory.

Marc

Considering how often throughout history even intelligent people have
been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people who
are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something
different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.

Being smart is what keeps some people from being intelligent.

Thomas Sowell

--

[Martin Taylor 2004.05.08.12.11]

[From Peter Small (2004.05.08)]

The discussion here is about about perceptions and how the brain
extracts meaning from sensory signals.

My apologies, then, for my previous message. I had thought you were
trying to argue a position in opposition to PCT, and I was simply
pointing out that you were not effectively doing that. Instead, you
were helpfully suggesting some of the means whereby the perceptual
signals of PCT might be generated.

Your language is sometimes confusing, to me, at least, because you
often preface your discussions of attractors with phrases like "PCT
does not...", when (as you now clarify) you aren't talking about PCT
at all.

Martin

hi...the web page could not be displayed. thanks

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: "Peter Small" <peter@PETERSMALL.NET>
  To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
  Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 11:33 AM
  Subject: Re: Chaotic Control

  > [From Peter Small (2004.05.08)]
  >
  > Marc,
  >
  > Your reference is to the neural architecture for movement control.
  > You would expect this to act like a regular control system even
  > though it is based upon attractors.
  >
  > The discussion here is about about perceptions and how the brain
  > extracts meaning from sensory signals.
  >
  > A very good article that illustrates this concept is an October 1993
  > article in Scientific American: "Simulating brain damage"
  >
http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/~plaut/papers/abstracts/HintonPlautShallice93SciAm.simBrainDam.html
  >
  > Peter Small
  >
  > Author of: Lingo Sorcery, Magical A-Life Avatars, The Entrepreneurial
  > Web, The Ultimate Game of Strategy and Web Presence
  > http://www.stigmergicsystems.com
  >
  >
  > >From [Marc Abrams (2004.05.08.1044)]
  > >
  > >> [From Peter Small (2004.05.08)]
  > >
  > >> >>Brain imaging techniques seem to support the view that perceptions
  > >> >>take the form of attractors rather than be the product of a
control
  > >> >>system as visualized in PCT.
  > >
  > >Actually, what they are finding in research is chaotic control systems.
  > >
  > >Take a look at some recent research from Llinas.
  > >
  > >http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/22/13064.pdf
  > >
  > >The problem here is as Boss man pointed out, Each of us has a very nice
  > >theory as to how things work, and most of the explanations are somewhat
  > >reasonable. The empirical evidence to date supports _no_ one current
  > >theory.
  > >
  > >Marc
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >Considering how often throughout history even intelligent people have
  > >been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people who
  > >are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something
  > >different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.
  > >
  > >Being smart is what keeps some people from being intelligent.
  > >
  > >Thomas Sowell
  >
  >
  > --
  >

From [Marc Abrams (2004.05.08.1531)

Peter,

Yes, this paper talks specifically to motor control, but if you take a
look at Llinas' work over the last 25 years and specifically to his book
_i of the Vortex_, his research has been in neuronal communication and
this paper has been and can be generalized to _all_ brain activity.

I believe control _and_ complexity work hand in hand throughout our
various bodily systems. You and I agree very strongly that
emotions/feelings are the 'motivating' factors that affect our
'perceptions', 'reference conditions' and our output, but I think you're
short changing control. Control and complexity can, and I believe do,
work together.

I have collected a huge amount of research to back this thinking up. If
your interested in the control/complexity paradigm let me know and I can
refer you to huge amount of work in emotions and perceptions. I'm
talking about first person research here, not someone else's view.

Peter, I can't stress how important it is to look at things from the
perspective of control and negative feedback.

How this actually happens is very much up for grabs. All deterministic
systems need to have a set of rules and right now, in my opinion, we
don't have a clue as too what those biological rules might be. There is
_much_ speculation, but little experimental evidence.

There is some very encouraging work going on at the cellular level right
now but it's happening.

EEG's and FMRI's are nice, but researchers attribute all sorts of things
to these images and frankly, no one really knows why these area's
'light' up. The stories researchers make up are interesting but hardly
set in concrete.

Marc

Considering how often throughout history even intelligent people have
been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people who
are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something
different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.

Being smart is what keeps some people from being intelligent.

Thomas Sowell