Clark, 2016: Surfing Uncertainty

[From MK (2016.04.29.2330 CET)]

There is a brief reference to Powers in Andy Clark's /Surfing
Uncertainty/ (Oxford University Press New York, 2016). Page 191:

"Instead of seeing perception as the control of action, it becomes
fruitful to think of action as the control of perception (Powers,
1973, Powers et al., 2011)."

M

[From Rick Marken (2016.04.29.1810)]

···

MK (2016.04.29.2330 CET)–

MK: There is a brief reference to Powers in Andy Clark’s /Surfing

Uncertainty/ (Oxford University Press New York, 2016). Page 191:

"Instead of seeing perception as the control of action, it becomes

fruitful to think of action as the control of perception (Powers,

1973, Powers et al., 2011).

RM: That’s kind of like saying in an astronomy book circa 1650 “Instead of seeing the sun as going around the earth it becomes fruitful to think of the earth as moving around the sun”. And then saying no more about it. Is that what Clark does with “control of perception”; just mention it and then carry on as though nothing happened? Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

[From MK (2016.04.30.1920 CET)]

The revolutionary is becoming the ordinary.

M

Hi Matti, is the book any good? Does he go on to talk about the idea even if not Powers? This suggests he read our joint 2011 paper which is encouraging too. Rick's analogy still gets to the heart of our frustrations though...

···

On 29 Apr 2016, at 22:33, MK <perceptualposts@gmail.com> wrote:

[From MK (2016.04.29.2330 CET)]

There is a brief reference to Powers in Andy Clark's /Surfing
Uncertainty/ (Oxford University Press New York, 2016). Page 191:

"Instead of seeing perception as the control of action, it becomes
fruitful to think of action as the control of perception (Powers,
1973, Powers et al., 2011)."

M

[From MK (2016.05.01.1615 CET)]

The book will not frustrate you too much if you treat it as an
overview of the literature that Clark considers to be supportive of
the view that considers human beings, and animals, to be "predictive"
beings. My impression is that the bulk of the book was written before
Clark got to reading Powers; who is cited late in the book, and in a
subdued way considering the overlap between the concepts introduced by
him and the contents of the _preceding_ chapters in the book. I am
sure that a PCTer will find the framing of certain issues in the book
to be very thought-provoking; and one might even suspect that there
are one or two members of this list who, if they were to read the
book, would find themselves being "stimulated" to write a brief
commentary, or possibly even an article, discussing it.

It appears to me that we will end up in a situation where
"predictions" will end-up being merged with "purposes" as the words
are already, at least occasionally, used almost interchangeably in the
literature.

M

Yes, and I think here is the problem. The term 'prediction' in the scientific literature is mixed, poorly defined and confusing because it is rarely used to mean what prediction actually means in everyday language. The everyday use certainly doesn't mean the same as 'purpose'. Whereas the definition of a reference value in PCT is unique, operationalised and easily mapped onto neural processes. Don't you think?
Warren

···

On 1 May 2016, at 15:13, MK <perceptualposts@gmail.com> wrote:

[From MK (2016.05.01.1615 CET)]

The book will not frustrate you too much if you treat it as an
overview of the literature that Clark considers to be supportive of
the view that considers human beings, and animals, to be "predictive"
beings. My impression is that the bulk of the book was written before
Clark got to reading Powers; who is cited late in the book, and in a
subdued way considering the overlap between the concepts introduced by
him and the contents of the _preceding_ chapters in the book. I am
sure that a PCTer will find the framing of certain issues in the book
to be very thought-provoking; and one might even suspect that there
are one or two members of this list who, if they were to read the
book, would find themselves being "stimulated" to write a brief
commentary, or possibly even an article, discussing it.

It appears to me that we will end up in a situation where
"predictions" will end-up being merged with "purposes" as the words
are already, at least occasionally, used almost interchangeably in the
literature.

M