[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0916.1541)]
I had forgotten that cognitive processes are verboten in PCT. The only
mechanism by which learning occurs is random reorganization.
Bruce Gregory
"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening. No
Doubt: no awakening."
From [Marc Abrams (2004.09.16.1554)]
<Tongue firmly in cheek>
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0916.1541)]
I had forgotten that cognitive processes are verboten in PCT. The only
mechanism by which learning occurs is random reorganization.
Just don't let it happen again. 
Your good standing in the PCT church
requires some discipline on your part. Of course you always have the option
of doing BGCT, but that might force you to form a new colony somewhere else.
Welcome Pilgrim.
You see Bruce, it really doesn't make a difference if you're Marc Abrams,
Bruce Gregory, Bruce Nevin, Martin Taylor, Peter Small, Bill Williams, or
any number of other folks who have some different ideas about certain
aspects of how control actually works, what is important for all to
understand is that whatever it is you guys think It _AIN'T_ PCT.
From Bill Powers today:
I'd say that is a pretty good description of a qualitative generalization.
Best,
Bill P.
---------------
Bill, this sounds like a pretty good description of your HPCT hierarchy.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Marc
[From Bill Powers (2004.09.16.1626 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory (2004.0916.1541) –
I had forgotten that cognitive
processes are verboten in PCT. The onlymechanism by which learning occurs is random
reorganization.
That’s a good thing to forget. Chapter 14 of B:CP begins like
this:
“Several types of phenomena are subsumed under the term
learning. I will call them memory, problem-solving
programs, and *reorganization.”*I think cognitive kinds of learning would related to problem-solving
programs.
Best,
Bill P.
I think cognitive
The only
mechanism by which learning occurs is random reorganization.
Bruce Gregory
"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening.
NoDoubt: no awakening."
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0917.0635)]
Bill Powers (2004.09.16.1626 MDT)
Bruce Gregory (2004.0916.1541) --
That's a good thing to forget. Chapter 14 of B:CP begins like this:
"Several types of phenomena are subsumed under the term learning. I will call them memory, problem-solving programs, and reorganization."
I think cognitive kinds of learning would related to problem-solving programs.
Fair enough. I should have said that the only type of learning that plays a role in existing PCT models is reorganization. Is that correct? I suspect that most people would not describe learning as a problem-solving program, but that is neither here nor there.
Bruce Gregory
"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening. No Doubt: no awakening."
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0917.0650)]
It is my impression that, at its present state of development, PCT is a
model of performance rather than a model of learning. Is my impression
correct?
Bruce Gregory
"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening. No
Doubt: no awakening."
[From Bill Powers (2004.09.17.0813 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory (2004.0917.0650)--
It is my impression that, at its present state of development, PCT is a
model of performance rather than a model of learning. Is my impression
correct?
That has been the case, mostly, until fairly recently (of course the
reorganization model has been there since the first paper in 1960, but I
guess you're discounting that). Learning is a much harder process to model,
and I've devoted my attention mostly to performance models -- several
generations of the Little Man, hierarchical control as in the inverted
pendulum, and most recently,large multiple-system control models. However,
I have looked into possible learning models. About ten years ago I tried an
"artificial cerebellum" model (reported at the first European CSG meeting
in Wales) which uses an application of the convolution theorem to allow the
Little Man to adapt its control systems to the physical dynamics of the
arm. I've also done a number of computer experiments with E. coli
reorganization, at first just testing how well it converged to a solution
in applications like solving sets of simultaneous equataion, and just this
year (reported at the July CSG meeting in Chicago) on an application to
reorganizing perceptual functions in a set of up to 500 interacting control
systems.
This sort of work goes slowly. I have to do a lot of learning myself, and
new ideas come when they want to, not when I want them to.
Higher-order processes are even harder to model, and so far I haven't seen
any models of those processes that look usable. But I don't keep up with
the literature, so maybe I'm just way behind eveyone else.
Best,
Bill P.
'
[From Rick Marken (2004.09.17.0840)]
Bruce Gregory (2004.0916.1125):
The cognitive load of procedural thinking is
considerably higher than the cognitive load of associative thinking. As
a consequence, the brain tends to rely on association whenever it can,
often short circuiting procedures in the process.
What kind of thinking does the brain use to think about how much to rely on
associative versus procedural thinking?
RSM
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0917.1236)]
Rick Marken (2004.09.17.0840)
What kind of thinking does the brain use to think about how much to
rely on
associative versus procedural thinking?
Basically, the brain looks for familiar patterns. Ray Kurzweil calls
the process hypothesize and test. "Our brains hypothesize patterns from
the images and sounds we encounter, followed by a testing of these
hypotheses, e.g., is that fleeting image in the corner of my eye really
a predator about to attack?" Once we have identified a familiar
pattern, the process stops. We don't go through a logical procedure,
for example, to identify a spouse. (From people with certain types of
brain damage, we know that this process can fail -- we can conclude
that a loved one is an impostor.) In dealing with students solving
problems, I find that recognizing a pattern that they think is familiar
will often short circuit the process of procedural thinking and lead
them to provide an answer based on analogy.
The infamous Monty Hall problem provides a very clear example. I have
posed the problem to some people in the form of 1000 doors. After they
have selected a door, but before they open it, they agree that they
have a one in 1000 chance of being right. I then tell them that Monty
now opens 998 of the remaining doors and ask them if they want to
switch to remaining unopened, unchosen door or stick with their
original choice. Some say that they will stick because there is a 50-50
chance that the prize is behind either door. Here the "inuitive trap"
is the pattern -- two doors -- 50-50 odds. This would be correct if the
starting position was just two doors. But it wasn't. Correct procedural
thinking leads to the conclusion that you would be most unwise not to
switch. But even when you tell someone the correct answer, the pull of
"been there, done that" can be overwhelming.
The hardest part of learning physics is learning that you _must_ use
procedures to solve problems and what the appropriate procedure is.
Most of our intutions are useless when it comes to solving physics
problems until we have solved enough of them to develop different
intuitions.
Bruce Gregory
"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening. No
Doubt: no awakening."
[From Rick Marken (2004.09.17.1130)]
Bruce Gregory (2004.0917.1236)--
Rick Marken (2004.09.17.0840)
What kind of thinking does the brain use to think about how much to
rely on associative versus procedural thinking?Basically, the brain looks for familiar patterns. Ray Kurzweil calls
the process hypothesize and test.
Is that procedural or associative thinking?
RSM
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
[From Bruce gregory (2004.0917.1512)]
Rick Marken (2004.09.17.1130)
Basically, the brain looks for familiar patterns. Ray Kurzweil calls
the process hypothesize and test.Is that procedural or associative thinking?
Associative. "This looks like something I am familiar with." How much
like? Exactly like (my spouse). Similar in many respects (a woman).
Similar in some respects (a human being). Similar at a more abstract
level (a mammal). And so forth. Chess masters know the same rules as
duffers do (procedural thinking), but they are much better at
recognizing patterns (associative thinking).
Bruce Gregory
"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening. No
Doubt: no awakening."
[From Rick Marken (2004.09.17.1330)]
Rick Marken (2004.09.17.0840)
What kind of thinking does the brain use to think about how much to
rely on associative versus procedural thinking?
Bruce Gregory (2004.0917.1236)--
Basically, the brain looks for familiar patterns. Ray Kurzweil calls
the process hypothesize and test.
>Rick Marken (2004.09.17.1130)--
Is that procedural or associative thinking?
Bruce gregory (2004.0917.1512)--
Associative.
So the brain uses associative thinking to think about how much to
rely on associative versus procedural thinking?
Does the associative thinking used to think about how much to rely on
associative versus procedural thinking count as part of the amount of
associative thinking that is being compared to the amount of procedural
thinking by the associative thinking?
RSM
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0917.1706)]
Rick Marken (2004.09.17.1330)
So the brain uses associative thinking to think about how much to
rely on associative versus procedural thinking?
Not quite. The brain's default is to think associatively. (I will vote
for George W. Bush because he looks like the kind of person who will
protect us from terrorists.) To go through the process of actually
looking at his record requires more effort and requires us not to rely
on our sense that George W. resembles our father more than John Kerry
does.
Does the associative thinking used to think about how much to rely on
associative versus procedural thinking count as part of the amount of
associative thinking that is being compared to the amount of procedural
thinking by the associative thinking?
The associative thinking process is a process of pattern identification
that comes to a stop. (Which candidate makes me feel safer?) It
arrives at an answer without us being aware of the process. Intuitions
and "gut feelings" are associative. The procedural thinking process is
concerned with how the answer is arrived at. ( Did attacking Iraq
reduce the threat of terrorism in the USA (procedural)? (Was Saddam
Hussein a bad person who deserved to be removed from office
(associative)? I really can't think of a better example of the
difference between associative and procedural thinking than the
arguments made by the two parties in the current election. The
Republicans want you to associate George W. Bush with safety after
9/11. The Democrats want you look at George W. Bush's record in office
as ask yourself if you are really better off than you were four years
ago.
Bruce Gregory
"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening. No
Doubt: no awakening."
[From Rick Marken (2004.09.17.1450)]
Bruce Gregory (2004.0917.1706)--
Rick Marken (2004.09.17.1330)
So the brain uses associative thinking to think about how much to
rely on associative versus procedural thinking?Not quite. The brain's default is to think associatively....
The associative thinking process is a process of pattern identification
that comes to a stop... The procedural thinking process is
concerned with how the answer is arrived at.
I understand that. I'm trying to understand the process (whatever it is)
used by the brain to do what you said it does in your initial post on this:
the brain tends to rely on association whenever it can, often short
circuiting procedures in the process".
So associative thinking is the default, but apparently the brain does use
procedural thinking occasionally. How does the brain decide when to use
procedural thinking? On what basis does the brain stop (short-circuit)
procedural thinking and return to associative thinking? How does the brain
decide whether it can or can't use associative (or procedural) thinking? It
seem to me that some kind of thinking would be involved to tell whether
associative or procedural thinking was applicable to a particular situation.
What I want to know is, in your theory, what kind of process is used to
determine whether the brain can use associative or procedural thinking?
RSM
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.0917.1843)]
Rick Marken (2004.09.17.1450)
What I want to know is, in your theory, what kind of process is used to
determine whether the brain can use associative or procedural thinking?
Assuming no organic problems, the brain can always use procedural
thinking. Some people use procedural thinking more than others. Why
this is the case is not clear. That it is the case seems indisputable
to me.
Bruce Gregory
"Great Doubt: great awakening. Little Doubt: little awakening. No
Doubt: no awakening."