[From Rick Marken (931108.0900)]
Bruce Nevin (Fri 93115 15:36:24 EST) --
The values of reference perceptions for pronunciation ("targets" in (1))
are set in such a way that (as it turns out) the perceived differences
between targets are maximized. This is termed contrast, as externally
observed.
Yes! Contrast is an OBSERVED SIDE EFFECT of controlling for particular
perceptions -- phonemes, body positions, musical configuations, car
positions (being in the right lane contrasts with being in the left
just as the sound of p contrasts with that of b).
pronouncing the phonemes in a word does not depend upon
perceiving (even in imagination) phonemically different words and
controlling the contrast between the desired word and the alternatives.
Bingo! Now you can see what our problem was. It sounded like you
were claiming that a contrast was a controlled perceptual variable.
It COULD be one -- but it seems highly unlikely that a contrast is
ALWAYS what is controlled during regular speech. Bill's questions
forced you to clarify your thinking about this -- and it turns out
that your thinking is the same as ours. When you pronounce a word
you are producing a perception that HAPPENS to contrast with many
other words; but you do not usually need to control a contrast between
words, per se, unless the listener is confused -- "Did you say
'bin'?", No, I said 'pin'... 'PIN'<-- hyperarticulation.
Norm Holland (931106) --
I thought literary types were talky, but they haven't seen
nuthin' yet. When do you work?
This IS our work. A fanatic (like rust) never sleeps.
Actually, I do consider the PCT view of human nature to be
EXTREMELY important, both scientifically and humanistically.
It provides a scientific rationale for the value of treating
people as people (rather than as objects) -- and it also shows
why this is so hard for people to do. Personal and collective
human goals can be achieved more readily when there is.little
or no conflict between the control systems acting to achieve
those goals. But conflict between control systems is almost
inevitable. PCT shows the most horrible (to me) consequence
of conflict -- loss of control. Paradoxically, the control that
creates conflict is also the control that is lost when conflict
exists.Conflict (intra- and inter- personal) can never be
eliminated but it CAN be delt with and reduced. PCT shows how
we can overcome the paradox of control (the loss of control that
results from controlling). PCT shows how we can maintain the
control that is essential to individual and collective survival
while avoiding, as best as possible, the conflicts that result
from maintaining control.
People are the only one's in control, here. I don't imagine that
we'll be able to make the world better place in two years or two
decades. But I'd like to at least spend a large part of MY little
lifetime working towards THAT goal.
Anyway, Bill sets forth his conception of Freud with which, inevitably, I
disagree.
How about a quick summary of the correct conception of Freud?
Identity theme is post-Freud, but central in my own think-
ing.
"Identity theme" sounds like a system level perception. Nice name.
i.n.kurtzer (931107.1530) --
is my file jacked, or has there really been no
discussion on the net over the weekend. i can
hardly believe that no one is arguing some point.
I read ya, Isaac. There were just 3 or 4 posts this weekend.
Maybe the feedforward/feedback issue just doesn't get people
excited. Actually, I think it is VERY important, not so much
becuase feedforward is a particularly important aspect of
human behavior (it isn't) but because people THINK it is.
The interesting question (for me) is "WHY do people WANT to
think of planned, open loop output as an important aspect of
human behavior when there is very little evidence that any
behavior (that we would call "behavior") is open loop?" I
really don't know the answer to this question. I do know why
psychologists like feedforward -- it's consistent with the
lineal causal model of behavior. But I don't understand why
engineers are so stuck on feedforward -- espcially when demos
like the little man show that feedback models can be so much
more effective, economical (in terms of lines of code), robust,
etc -- all the things that engineers are supposed to like.
Yo no entiendo
Rick