In article <agnewsr-2001971325080001@macadamia186077.nuts.nwu.edu>,
agnewsr@nwu.edu (Sean R. Agnew) wrote:
Correction
If you are interested in more information about Kinetech, check out our
WEB site at http://user.icx.net/~kinetech/. You probably will need
Netscape version 3.0 to properly view this homepage.
The proper WEB page address is http://user.icx.net/~kinetechinc/
Sorry for the misprint.
Sean
[From Rick Marken (940221.1930)]
Oops. The "Chaos, Self-organization and Psychology" article is in
the January 1994 (not 1974) issue of American Psychologist.
My main beef with "self-organization" as described in that
paper can be simply stated as follows:
Self - orgaization is a PHENOMENON that is being passed off as
a MODEL.
It's kind of a mathematically sophisticated version of a dormative
principle. Self-organizing phenomena are fun to look at but they
have nothing in particular to do with purposeful behavior -- and they
are not an EXPLANATION of anything. As Homer Simpson would say: "Self-
organization? It's just a bunch of stuff that happens".
Good evening
Rick
<Martin Taylor 940222 12:15>
Rick Marken (940221.1930)
Self - orgaization is a PHENOMENON that is being passed off as
a MODEL.
To the same degree that "control" is.
It's kind of a mathematically sophisticated version of a dormative
principle.
Wrong.
Self-organizing phenomena are fun to look at but they
have nothing in particular to do with purposeful behavior
Right. I tried to get that across over a longer period than I like to
remember a couple of months ago.
But note: even though self-organized structures may have nothing to do
with purposeful behaviour, they are almost certainly the evolutionary
precursor of purposeful behaviour. The first control systems almost
have to have developed from self-organized structures.
-- and they
are not an EXPLANATION of anything.
"Control systems" are not an EXPLANATION of anything. The description of
how a control system operates is an explanation of how its controlled
variable comes to be relatively stable in the face of disturbance.
As Homer Simpson would say: "Self-
organization? It's just a bunch of stuff that happens".
Yep. Like everything else in this (and any other) world. Nature is as
Nature does. We just are the result of what happened. Luckily, our
particular universe developed with a set of behaviours that permitted
self-organization to be a bunch of stuff that happens, for if it had
not, we wouldn't be here to discuss it.
Martin
[From Rick Marken (990421.2230)]
Oops.
I said [Rick Marken (990421.2130)]:
We know from the optics of the situation that FoE will remain
the same (on target) with the prisms on as long as the subject
moves toward the actual target (as Rushton et al noted) or
toward the _image_ of the target (as Bill Powers noted).
This is ridiculous. It implies two simultaneous FoEs. I think
Rushton et al are right and Bill is wrong; when you move to the
_actual_ target with prisms on, the FoE is where it was when the
prisms were off -- centered on the target (though displaced on
the eye). If you move toward the _image_ of the target (so the
image is foveaed) the FoE is _not_ centered on the target as it
is when the prisms are off. So I agree with Isaac and Rushton et
al: the fact that the subjets do not walk directly toward the
actual target suggests that they are _not_ controlling FoE, keeping
it on target.
I still think that the Rushton et al study doesn't constitute a
test of what variables people _do_ control when they walk to
targets. There is no evidence that FoE _or_ target image position
is under control in this study. In fact, I think it's likely that
_both_ of these variables are controlled when people walk to targets;
the subjects just couldn't control them right away given the rather
overwhelming change in the feedback function (connecting locomotion
to FoE and target image position) imposed by the prisms.
Of course, this is just my current point of view and anyone
can prove me wrong by having a differnet one;-)
Best
Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Rick Marken (970505.1030 PDT)]
In my earlier post (970505.0950 PDT) I said:
When you can see one letter happening after another (movement) you still
can see (and control) the order in which the letters occur.
That should have read:
When you can see one letter happening after another (movement) you still
_can't_ see (and control) the order in which the letters occur.
Best
Rick
[From Rick Marken (920514 12:32)]
Geez, this math stuff is a pain.
not:
r = s*/k.f - (k.e/k.f) d
but
r = s*/k.f - (k.o/k.f) d
Sorry
Rick
**************************************************************
Richard S. Marken USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
[From Rick Marken (920516)]
Bill Powers mentioned an article of his on the perils of
statistical "modeling". That article is not in Hershberger's
"Volitional Action" book (though everyone should read Bill's articles
in that book). The article he was referring to is actually in
the September/October 1990 issue of the journal "American Behavioral
Scientist" (vol 34/number 1). It is called "Control theory and
statistical generalizations". It is NOT recommended reading for
those who trust the findings of conventional psychology. But it is
fun for the rest of us.
Enjoy.
Rick
**************************************************************
Richard S. Marken USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
[From: Dennis Delprato]
Check assertion in earlier message today that Herr Goering made
it to Israel. Obviously I need to watch more movies--such as
Judgment at Nuremberg. That is where, of course, he performed
the Supreme Act of Self-Control that some classify as escape
behavior in his particular case.
[From Bruce Abbott (950616.1025 EST)]
It never fails! As soon as I press the "send" button the mistakes jump off
the page at me:
Bruce Abbott (950616.0955 EST)
Situation 1: Cursor not on target.
Pressing the mouse button moves the target. Responses are emitted until
the cursor moves to target or the behavior extinguishes from lack of
reinforcement (whichever comes first). Occasional success reinforces
button-pressing, thus maintaining the behavior. Success is programmed on a
VR-5 schedule (on average, one in 5 responses will be reinforced, but the
actual number between two reinforcements varies randomly from 1 to some
upper limit.
The first sentence should read "Pressing the mouse button moves the cursor."
Also, I left out the close-paren in the last sentence.
ADDENDUM
Rick suggested that having the cursor move to a non-target following a
response would count as punishment, so I should explain why it doesn't. To
act as a punisher, a consequence must make things worse than before the
response. What you have here is "not on target" before the response and
"not on target" after the response. No change in situation, no punishment.
Regards,
Bruce
[From Bill Powers (940823.1005 MDT)]
I don't know where my head was when Mary told me the figures on
filibusters, but I completely garbled the numbers. Here is what the New
Yorker actually said:
Here's the scorecard, according to a June study by the
Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress: during
the eighteenth century, no filibusters; during the nineteenth,
sixteen; during first half of this one, sixty-six; during the
nineteen-sixties, twenty; during the seventies, fifty-two; and
during the eighties, ninety. During the nineties, if the pace set
so far is maintained, the Senate will rack up some two hundred.
(New Yorker, Aug. 22 & 29, 1994, p. 10).
Senility, here I come.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best
Bill P.
Tom Bourbon [940823.1433]
[From Bill Powers (940823.1005 MDT)]
. . .
. . . During the nineties, if the pace set
so far is maintained, the Senate will rack up some two hundred.
(New Yorker, Aug. 22 & 29, 1994, p. 10).
Variants of this story seem to be making the general rounds. During the
past two weeks I have seen the Senate majority leader tell his version
several times on television. Of course, in his telling he includes as a
filibuster every instance in which he has filed motions to _preclude_ a
filibuster, a nifty trick that makes the count look even higher than in the
story you saw in the New Yorker. What might he be controlling (for)?
Later,
Tom "I never saw a politician I really liked" Bourbon