[From Rick Marken (931119.0900)]
Cliff Joslyn (931117.1300)--
Now concerning the marble at the bottom of the bowl, in my
terminology, this is a dynamical system with stability but without
control.
(Rick: which side are you arguing above?).
I'm on YOUR side, Cliff. The marble in a bowl is a stable -- not
a controlling -- dynamical system; the marble does not resist
disturbances.
Bruce Nevin (Thu 931118 16:28:04 EST) --
The perception of a category is present whenever I imagine controlling
some perception without imagining precisely which of diverse possible
means I use for the purpose. "Something to pry this cover up with."
I do not see a need for a separate category level.
What am I missing?
I think you are descibing the categorical nature of perception
(imagined perception in your example) -- not the perception of a
category. I think that's the difference. You can pick up a knife
and pry with it becuase you've pryed with knives before. But you
cannot look around for "something to pry with" until you can
perceive many lower level perceptions as the same thing -- "some-
thing to pry with".
Bill Cunningham (931118.2130)
I said:
Is this the way you guys do science?
Bill replies:
The idea, as I've understood it, is make a few observations
and then conjur up some wild-assed guess of a hypothethized generalization--
which if true must have certain consequences independent of the original
observations.
I would call it a "hypothesized underlying mechanism (model)" rather
than "a hypothethized generalization" but, yes, this is how I would
say science is done, too.
I was responding to your (and Martin's) claim that PCT "must be true"
for various a priori reasons. I don't like this point of view only
because it seems to stifle the desire to observe and experiment with
what I think science is all about -- phenomena (what we experience).
I enjoy theorizing as much as the next person -- I think theory is
EXTREMELY important. But theory doesn't count for much without
plenty of data to constrain it. There is not much good behavioral
data around to constrain PCT (or any other model, for that matter).
I personally think the most important thing for PCT fans to be doing
at this time is not trying to expand or refine the theory but, rather,
collecting observations and test data relevant to the most basic
aspects of the PCT model. The idea that PCT "must be true" could
keep PCT fans in their armchairs -- where they won't help anything.
Dan Miller (931118.1430)--
Hi Dan, my man!
The purpose of this post is not to agree (or disagree) with Mary, but
to ask the probably inconsequential question, What are we doing when we
vent our pique (or our rage, or ...)?
Very good question.I don't know the answer but there is one thing
I do know -- only a control system can be piqued. Pique implies
a discrepency between what is wanted by the system and what it's
getting. PCT shows that what the system wants is a certain level
of perceptual variables; the system itself (for it's own reasons)
determines what level of those perceptual variables it wants. If
there is a chronic discrepency between the actual and wanted level
of a perceptual variable, there is "pique".
The experience of pique is an emotion -- meaning the perception of
the somatic preparation for producing the outputs that should (but
are not) closing the gap between actual and wanted value of
perception. I guess "venting" pique is using those somatic system
to do something -- just to dissipate the energy and eliminate the
emotional perception.
Best
Rick