Conflictive Control, Goodness, Benzon's point

[From Rick Marken (961018.0850)]

Avery Andrews (961018) --

Something that puzzles me is why my musings on `conflictive control'
have given rise to what to me seems to be a rather pointless argument
about attractors, rather than about whether `conflictive control' is
really as prevalent as I understood Kent's paper to be saying it was

I agree with you and I agree with Kent;-)

I'd be happy if attractors never came up again (unless they were _real_
attractors, like my wife;-))

Is it really bad (episthemologicaly) if I contructing a model keeping in
mind the behavior that the model is suppose to simulate.

No. It is really _good_ that you are doing this.

Bill Benzon (961018) --

I _think_ I undertsand your point now. Let me try to paraphrase it; let me
know if I'm on the right track.

PCT does not provide a detailed, neurological explanation of how the
perceptual functions (especially those that provide high level perceptions)
work. PCT cannot explain natural language until it provides a detailed,
neurological model of perception based on the evidence of neurophysiology.
The neurophysiology we have suggests that both afferent (sensory) and
efferent (motor) neural paths are part of the neural networks that compute
all perceptions, but especially high level perceptions. These afferent and
efferent neural paths should be delt with as perceptual control systems in
their own right. Since these afferent and efferent pathways exist wholly
within perceptual functions, both can be considered sensory pathways.

Is this your point?

Best

Rick