CSG web site & Memory

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.10.1530)]

Dag, Will Tom Bourbon’s papers be put on the site? I saw some references to some work he did in some books but no papers.

Any help would be appreciated.

You did a very nice job. The site looks terrific

Rick, I visited your demo page and in doing your demo’s a thought struck me. If memory is not an important aspect of behavior than how can I discern what all those lines on the web site are. I think you call them words, right? Well, those words have meanings. Where do I get the meanings of those words from? Given the meanings, a collection of words (a sentence) has even more significance and meaning. Where and how do I understand those?

How do you think your demo’s would work with a computer running on batteries deep in the Amazon basin? What do you think the natives there are perceiving when you ask then to do one of your demo’s?

If you asked one of the natives to move the ‘mouse’ he might look at you kinda funny. :wink:

Please don’t tell me your demo’s only require a little memory. That is like saying you can be a little pregnant.

A major difference between you and me Rick is that you believe what you sense is what you perceive. I believe that what you sense you first need to interpret and then what you interpret is what you ultimately perceive.

Each aspect is important, but we know from folks like Helen Keller that some may have a limited ability to sense but that does not stop us from interpreting what we do sense and then being able to perceive the world.

So far neuroscience supports my way of thinking, but if you can show me where I might be mistaken I’d like to hear about it.

I’m not sure where you believe our ‘principles’ are stored but I can’t understand why memory is not an integrated part of the model.

Is there a reason for this?

My perceptual ‘construction’ follows thus;

Sensing --> Interpretations --> Perceptions --> Constructions

How do you see this taking place?

Regards,

Marc

Regards,

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.11.2140)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.10.1530)

Rick, I visited your demo page and in doing your demo's�a thought struck me.�If memory is not an important aspect�of behavior than how can I discern what all those lines on the web site are.

I think you use your memory of what the words that are made out of those lines mean.

Given the meanings, a collection of words (a sentence) has even more significance and meaning. Where and how do I understand those?

The way I think people do it is by storing associations between the words/ sentences and perceptions in memory so that the words / sentences eventually come to evoke the appropriate imagined (remembered) perceptions. I don't understand the details of the development of the associative addressing process.

How do you think your demo's would work with a computer running on batteries deep in the Amazon� basin?

About the same as they do on my computer here at home. I think the performance of the demos would depend more on what OS and browser they're using then on the power supply.

What do you think the natives there are perceiving when you ask then to do one of your demo's?

Assuming they don't speak English they'd probably be perceiving just a bunch of sounds (intensities, sensations, transitions, auditory configurations, etc) without much meaning.

If you asked one of the natives to move the 'mouse' he might look at you kinda funny. :wink:

I wouldn't be surprised. I think it would be wiser to talk to the native through an interpreter who could explain the whole thing to him. My graduate advisor did auditory psychophysics experiments with native people in Guatemala; he used a translator and was able to teach the natives rather quickly how to do things like adjust tone intensities by moving dials (this was well before there were PCs in existence). I'm quite sure that once an Amazon native was taught how to use a mouse to affect the position of a cursor the results of the tracking task would be exactly the same as it is with any native speaker of English.

�Please don't tell me your demo's only require a little memory.

OK. I won't. In fact, it depends on people having a lot of knowledge stored in memory about what English words mean and how to use computers.

A major difference between you and me Rick is that you believe what you sense is what you�perceive.

I wouldn't describe what I believe about perception that way.

I believe that what you sense you first need to interpret and then what you interpret is�what you ultimately perceive.

That's what I believe, too. I believe that the "interpretation" of sensory input is done by perceptual functions, such as the receptive fields of Hubel & Wiesel.

So far neuroscience supports my way of thinking, but if you can show me where I might be mistaken I'd like to hear about it.

I don't think you're mistaken at all. I think neuroscience (like the Hubel & Wiesel work) supports that idea that perception is an "interpretation", "construction" or "function" of sensory input.

�I'm not sure where you believe our 'principles' are stored but I can't understand why memory is not an integrated part of the model.

All perceptions, even the lowest level perceptions -- what you call sense data -- can be stored in memory (see pp 210-211 in B:CP 1st Ed). Memory is an integrated part of the PCT model.

My perceptual 'construction' follows thus;

Sensing --> Interpretations --> Perceptions --> Constructions

How do you see this taking place?

Physical Variables --> Sensing (Intensity Perceptions) --> Interpretations (Perceptual Functions) --> Perceptions (Higher Level Perceptions)-->Repeat from "Interpretations" until you have a System Concept. Let stand for 5 minutes. Don't place anywhere near a World Model. Serve with or without consciousness.

Best

Rick

···

---

Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.0223)]

In a message dated 12/12/2005 12:43:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.11.2140)]

What do you see as the difference between imagination and memory, if any?

Regards,

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.12. 0940)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.0223)--

What�do you see as the difference between imagination and memory, if any?

I think this is spelled out pretty clearly in the chapter on Memory in B:CP (which starts on p. 207 of the 2nd Edition). Basically I see memory as a process of storing perceptions in a manner such that they can be retrieved purposefully. Retrieval requires some kind of addressing scheme along with something like a "symbol table" -- something like what Google uses to address all the internet information it has stored -- that indexes the addresses in some way. I see imagination as the process of "playing back" the perceptual information that is stored at specified addresses.

If you haven't read B:CP already (I can't believe it but it seems that you haven't) I highly recommend that you read B:CP 2dE if you would like to know the proposed role of memory and imagination in behavior, according to PCT.

Regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.1310)]

In a message dated 12/12/2005 12:46:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.12. 0940)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.0223)–

What do you see as the difference between imagination and memory, if
any?

I think this is spelled out pretty clearly in the chapter on Memory in
B:CP (which starts on p. 207 of the 2nd Edition).

This is what I thought. That your ideas mirror those of Bill’s as stated in B:CP. I just wanted to make sure because your post yesterday took me by surprise.

I’m not sure you understand that you have contradicted yourself here.

You stated yesterday that in response to me;

My perceptual ‘construction’ follows thus;

Sensing --> Interpretations --> Perceptions --> Constructions

How do you see this taking place?

And your reply was;

Physical Variables --> Sensing (Intensity Perceptions) -->
Interpretations (Perceptual Functions) --> Perceptions (Higher >Level Perceptions)–>Repeat from “Interpretations” until you >have a System Concept.

First, Why is it then, that you believe, as you have stated any number of times that a ‘perceptual function’, i.e. your ‘interpretations’ cannot and does not include imagination/memory?

And if it can, why has this important aspect not been covered in the model and investigated? I did not see the 2nd edition of B:CP but I have read B:CP a number of times. Has he decided on a specific memory model?

If so and it is as you describe below then I’m afraid it was a poor choice. The use of a ‘computer memory’ model has long been discredited. But that is not even my point or care.

You state that stored memory is to be used for purposeful behavior. How? That is, how do you see memory manifesting itself in purposeful human behavior?

Second, your description of a perceptual construction and the example of Hubel talks to a visual perception. Your description of the construction shows the use of the PCT hierarchy. How do you see such senses as hearing, taste, and touch to name a few, adhering to the same basic aspects (i.e. relationships, categories, etc) as the visual perceptions? Does each sense then have its own hierarchy?

If so, where and how are they combined, and how is all this explained in the current PCT model?

Remember, you are talking about a real circuit here in PCT, not just a metaphor.

Third, why must you start with a ‘physical variable’. What about ‘pain’? What about any feeling, idea or emotion?

If I were to ask you to give me three good reasons to buy the 2nd edition of B:CP, when I already have and read the first, what would they be?

Regards,

Marc

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.1550)]

BTW Freddy, do you see my last post as a ‘cheap shot’ at Rick and the list? I hope not.

I actually would like to hear from anyone who might have addressed these issues.

My intent was not to put Rick on the spot. I would hope that someone might be able to shed some light on my ignorance.

Rick’s response to me yesterday, like his revelations the other day about the hierarchy I found to be important and useful. Am I the only one who thinks so?

Regards,

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.12.1320)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.1310) --

First, Why is�it then, that�you believe, as you have stated any number of times�that a 'perceptual function', i.e. your 'interpretations' cannot and does not include imagination/memory?

I was wrong about that. I now believe that a perceptual function can have inputs that are both perceptual (sensory- based) and imagined. You can demonstrate control of a perception that is part sensory -based and part imagined by doing the Integral control tracking task in the the Open Loop Control demo at:

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/OpenLoop.html

When the cursor disappears you can continue controlling a perception of the distance between the sensory based target and the imagined position of the cursor.

�And if�it can, why�has this important aspect not been covered in the model and investigated?

The model has always included this. I just didn't notice because the perceptual functions with inputs that are both perceptual (sensory-based) and imagined at at one level above the system in imagination mode (see Figure 15.3; the perceptual functions with sensory-based and imagined inputs are at a level above the system shown in the figure and are not shown in the diagram).

I did not see the 2nd edition of B:CP but I have read B:CP a number of times. Has he decided on a specific memory model?

The memory model is described in the chapter on Memory. There are still details to be worked out but that requires doing some research and modeling.

You state that stored memory is to be used for purposeful behavior.

Actually, I think I stated only what remembering is a purposeful process itself. I typically have a goal when I try to remember things (like the goal of recalling someone's phone number). Imagined perceptions are purposefully produced just as sensory based perceptions are purposefully produced, it seem to me.

How? That is, how do you see memory manifesting itself in purposeful human behavior?

I just gave an example. Another would be recalling whether a street goes though to another so it might be used for the purpose of getting somewhere more quickly.

�Second, your description of a perceptual construction and the example of Hubel talks to a visual perception.

Not necessarily. Similar types of receptive fields have been found for audition and taste, I believe.

Your description of the construction shows the use of the PCT hierarchy. How do you see such senses as hearing, taste, and touch to name a few, adhering to the same basic aspects (i.e. relationships, categories, etc) as the visual perceptions?

Does each sense then have its own hierarchy?

If so, where and how are they combined, and how is all this explained in the current PCT model?

Third, why must you start with a 'physical variable'. What about 'pain'? What about any feeling, idea or emotion?

You ask a lot of questions. Answering them constitutes consulting. I am now in the consulting business and charge a fee for my consulting services. If you would like answers to these and any other questions you might have, let me know and I'll send you a quote for what it would cost you to get the answers. The terms will be cash in advance but you will have the right to use my answers as you chose as long as you give proper attribution.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.12.1440)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.1310)

I replied to this post but the reply seems to have gotten lost in cyberspace. Or perhaps I hit the wrong button.

In that post I answered some of your questions (I don't want to take the time to repeat) but I realized that answering so many questions is really consulting and I now charge for consulting. So from now on, I will send you private quotes of how much I will charge to answer any questions you want answered (that I haven't already answered for free). In your post referenced above, the questions I didn't answer were the following:

Second, your description of a perceptual construction and the example of Hubel talks to a visual perception. Your description of the construction shows the use of the PCT hierarchy. How do you see such senses as hearing, taste, and touch to name a few, adhering to the same basic aspects (i.e. relationships, categories, etc) as the visual perceptions? Does each sense then have its own hierarchy?

If so, where and how are they combined, and how is all this explained in the current PCT model?

Remember, you are talking about a real circuit here in PCT, not just a metaphor.

Third, why must you start with a 'physical variable'. What about 'pain'? What about any feeling, idea or emotion?

If I were to ask you to give me three good reasons to buy the 2nd edition of B:CP, when I already have and read the first, what would they be?

If you are interested in getting answers to these questions, please let me know and I'll send you a quote.

Regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.2128)]

In a message dated 12/12/2005 5:53:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.12.1320)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.1310) –

First, Why is it then, that you believe, as you have stated any number
of times that a ‘perceptual function’, i.e. your ‘interpretations’
cannot and does not include imagination/memory?

I was wrong about that. I now believe that a perceptual function can
have inputs that are both perceptual (sensory- based) and imagined. You
can demonstrate control of a perception that is part sensory -based and
part imagined by doing the Integral control tracking task in the the
Open Loop Control demo at:

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/OpenLoop.html

Thanks, but I did that whe I originally started this thread. In fact that was the demo that got me thinking about all this, thanks.

That ‘demo’ provides no understanding of what I am asking about. and you have a real big problem friend.

You can’t seem to understand that I am not in some kind of ‘contest’ with you, or interested in ‘winning’ any discussions or making you look bad.

What seems obvious to me is that you do believe I am out to hurt you and PCT. Well, I’d like you to think about what benefits (motives) that would provide me with and then you might want to test those private assumptions to see if they are in fact true.

Just so we understand each other, it is you who have these ideas in your head and there is little I can do to change them if you are unwiling to expose them to me.

When the cursor disappears you can continue controlling a perception of
the distance between the sensory based target and the imagined position
of the cursor.

First of all I saw no ‘arrow’ on the screen as your instructions said there would be. Ssecond, I am not interested in ‘recall’. I’m interested in how your imagination influences what you ultimately perceive and a tracking task is not going to do it.

And if it can, why has this important aspect not been covered in the
model and investigated?

The model has always included this. I just didn’t notice because the
perceptual functions with inputs that are both perceptual
(sensory-based) and imagined at at one level above the system in
imagination mode (see Figure 15.3; the perceptual functions with
sensory-based and imagined inputs are at a level above the system shown
in the figure and are not shown in the diagram).

First of all, ‘imagination mode’ is not part of the model. ‘Imagination mode’ is a group of ideas (3 I believe) of what an imagination connection might be if it was in the model.

But Martin Taylor provided an example of how imagination could be part of the model and he did it 12 years ago, as he said. Why was, and is his idea being ignored?

But like my other questions please don’t bother quoting me, I’ll use the lady down the block.

I did not see the 2nd edition of B:CP but I have read B:CP a number
of times. Has he decided on a specific memory model?

The memory model is described in the chapter on Memory. There are still
details to be worked out but that requires doing some research and
modeling.

I wonder why no one has attempted any? What further research is necessary?

You state that stored memory is to be used for purposeful behavior.

Actually, I think I stated only what remembering is a purposeful
process itself. I typically have a goal when I try to remember things
(like the goal of recalling someone’s phone number). Imagined
perceptions are purposefully produced just as sensory based perceptions
are purposefully produced, it seem to me.

How? That is, how do you see memory manifesting itself in purposeful
human behavior?

I just gave an example. Another would be recalling whether a street
goes though to another so it might be used for the purpose of getting
somewhere more quickly.

Second, your description of a perceptual construction and the example
of Hubel talks to a visual perception.

Not necessarily. Similar types of receptive fields have been found for
audition and taste, I believe.

Your description of the construction shows the use of the PCT
hierarchy. How do you see such senses as hearing, taste, and touch to
name a few, adhering to the same basic aspects (i.e. relationships,
categories, etc) as the visual perceptions?

Does each sense then have its own hierarchy?

If so, where and how are they combined, and how is all this explained
in the current PCT model?

Third, why must you start with a ‘physical variable’. What about
‘pain’? What about any feeling, idea or emotion?

You ask a lot of questions. Answering them constitutes consulting. I am
now in the consulting business and charge a fee for my consulting
services.

Good luck, and may I recommend you try to be the economic advisor for the next Democratic candidate for President.

Your ideas in economics will revolutionize the entire field and I believe set you up for an igNoble Prize.

If that doesn’t work out I’ll speak to the lady down the block (you’ll understand who she is when you read that post) and see if she can’t get you some steady work.

If you would like answers to these and any other questions
you might have, let me know and I’ll send you a quote for what it would
cost you to get the answers. The terms will be cash in advance but you
will have the right to use my answers as you chose as long as you give
proper attribution.

See my next post, and as you will see, I can be just as much of a smart ass as you can and it seems you are more interested in ‘scoring’ points then you are in legitimate discourse.

Why are we not talking about these subjects and the research needed and already done in these areas? What and who are you waiting for?

Regards,

Marc

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.2100)]

In a message dated 12/12/2005 5:42:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.12.1440)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.1310)

I replied to this post but the reply seems to have gotten lost in
cyberspace. Or perhaps I hit the wrong button.

No, actually I got it.

In that post I answered some of your questions (I don’t want to take
the time to repeat) but I realized that answering so many questions is
really consulting and I now charge for consulting. So from now on, I
will send you private quotes of how much I will charge to answer any
questions you want answered (that I haven’t already answered for free).
In your post referenced above, the questions I didn’t answer were the
following:

I could probably take your cognition course and get those answers but I wouldn’t waste my money expecting water from a stone there either.

Why not post the quotes publicly so we can all have a good laugh.

Actually I have a Tarot card reader down the block who could probably give me more concrete answers then you can at this point. She also reads palms.

Is this what you mean by a ‘cheap shot’ Freddy?

I hope not. This is me simply giving Rick the same amount of respect Rick chooses to extend to me. Do you see the connection here? Do you understand that I asked those questions because I felt they were important and I had no clue as to how they were currently being addressed in PCT?

Second, your description of a perceptual construction and the example
of Hubel talks to a visual perception. Your description of the
construction shows the use of the PCT hierarchy. How do you see such
senses as hearing, taste, and touch to name a few, adhering to the
same basic aspects (i.e. relationships, categories, etc) as the visual
perceptions? Does each sense then have its own hierarchy?

If so, where and how are they combined, and how is all this explained
in the current PCT model?

Remember, you are talking about a real circuit here in PCT, not just a
metaphor.

Third, why must you start with a ‘physical variable’. What about
‘pain’? What about any feeling, idea or emotion?

If I were to ask you to give me three good reasons to buy the 2nd
edition of B:CP, when I already have and read the first, what would
they be?

If you are interested in getting answers to these questions, please let
me know and I’ll send you a quote.

And as I have repeatedly said to you, you just don’t get it.

I am not looking for ‘answers’, because there are none. Right now all anyone has is a set of opinions and conjectures; even if you could somehow throw all of this into a model, it would still be conjectures and opinions.

I asked these questions because I think these questions are important and need to be discussed but I guess not.

I guess everyone is waiting for the big Kahoona to come down from the mountain top with ‘the answers’.

But I guess that is one of reasons why people are on this list. You all seem to be waiting for Bill to come down from the mountain top after he hears his next round of Revelations. Hey, who knows, it’s been 50 years, he’s due.

BTW, you might want to think about changing PCT. PCT is also used for Personal Construct Theory and it has been around a lot longer than the perceptual kind.

I will say one thing Rick, and Bryan, Fredy, and Mr 12th Level himself will all be pleased by this.

You have finally convinced me that this list and your theory is a waste land. No Freddy, this is not a cheap shot. This is a direct observation.

I hope others are paying attention and actually try to turn things around but I noticed two more people left the list, 98 and counting down and in 3 minutes it will be 87.

There is a reason people are leaving, and there is a reason why they are not staying. You folks might want to look in the mirror for some answers but I doubt you will.

You don’t have the courage or stomach to do so.

I hope all have a wonderful holiday season and a happy and healthy New Year

Regards,

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2005.12 12.2020)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.2128)--

What seems obvious to me is that you do believe I am out to hurt you and PCT.

I have no idea what you are "out to do". It's what you are doing, whether you are out to do it or not, that I find astonishingly antagonistic.

Regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.12.2030)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.2100)--

Rick Marken (2005.12.12.1440)]

If you are interested in getting answers to these questions, please let
me know and I'll send you a quote.

I am not looking for 'answers', because there are none.

So you won't be wanting a quote, then?

Regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.13.0435)]

In a message dated 12/12/2005 11:28:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.12 12.2020)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.2128)–

What seems obvious to me is that you do believe I am out to hurt you
and PCT.

I have no idea what you are “out to do”. It’s what you are doing,
whether you are out to do it or not, that I find astonishingly
antagonistic.

Ah, maybe the movement I thought I saw on the part of Rick the last couple of days toward a more ‘open’ position might not have been an illusion.

Besides, I can imagine a number of heads going up and down in silent agreement with Rick’s statement above. This might even be what Mr. Nickols was referring to with regard to his ‘cheap shots’ remark.

Rick, I am going to show you that you again contradict yourself and you are not being ‘honest’ with both me and yourself.

I use the scare quotes around ‘honest’ because I do not believe you are currently doing this intentionally and that you are blind to it.

I am going to point this out to you not to be ‘antagonistic’ but to show you that it does in fact matter and that I do care.

You say above that you don’t know whether or not I am looking to hurt you and then in the next breath tell me I am antagonistic.

Well, to say that says that in fact you do ‘know’ whether or not I am attempting to hurt you and that you feel that I am.

Now, you may very well have justifiable reasons for feeling this way toward me, but this is a great example of an un- illustrated and untested self-sealing evaluation of me on your part.

What purpose to you believe I have in mind for this antagonism toward you?

What do you believe I am attempting to accomplish by being this way?

Can you provide me with some illustrations of what you are talking about?

Are you interested in resolving this, or are you simply interested in going about chasing strawmen?

I find your dismissiveness of my ideas and the ideas of anyone who does not fit into your framework of thinking insulting and self-defeating.

You ask for research and testing by others and then condemn those very same people when they attempt to do so but do not conform to your ideals or framework for what you feel they should be either working on or testing for.

You feel put upon by me when I attempt to get some discussion going about matters that are important to me.

But the worst part of all this is that there is no discussion about these disagreements, no give and take. No understanding of what it might take to get to the next level. How and why would you expect anyone to want to do work that you and not they are interested in doing?

Are you blind to the unilateral controlling of others you are attempting? And this is not an accusation, this is a plea for some reflection.

I would like to think that CSGnet could be a community that fosters and encourages cooperation among folks interested in perceptual control instead of the cat-fights and territorial disputes about who ‘owns’ which theory, and who is ‘right’.

Why aren’t we discussing the pro’s and con’s of Glasser’s ideas, or those of Ed Ford, Tom Bourbon, Martin Taylor, and many others?

No Rick, I’m not talking about the cynical, snide, back-stabbing stuff that is displayed when you are looking to squash some else’s ideas or when you are trying to make someone else look small.

I don’t know whether my ideas are any good, nor do I know whether those anyone else holds are as well.

I know that what I believe might be some fruitful paths to take and I would like to hear the paths others might consider as well.

You have recently said I talk the talk but you want to see me walk the walk. Well, I’m trying, but it will take a great deal more than me to make anything happen.

Are you ready to walk the walk?

Regards,

Marc

[From Fred Nickols (2005.12.13.1005 ET)] -
      

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.12.1550)]

BTW Freddy, do you see my last post as a 'cheap shot' at Rick and the list?
I hope not.

If by your "last post" you mean the one with time-date stamp of (2005.12.12.1310), no, I don't see that as a "cheap shot."

Fred Nickols

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.13.1045)]

In a message dated 12/13/2005 10:11:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nickols@ATT.NET writes:

···

[From Fred Nickols (2005.12.13.1005 ET)] -

If by your “last post” you mean the one with time-date stamp of (2005.12.12.1310), no, I don’t see that as a “cheap shot.”

Good, then maybe the next time you think you see one please let me know and provide the illustration.

I would very much appreciate that.

thanks,

Marc

Fred Nickols

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.13.1710)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.13.0435) --

What purpose to you believe I have in mind for this antagonism toward you?

Antagonism is probably the wrong word because it implies intentionality. I don't think your purpose is to be antagonistic. I think you have purposes that lead you to act in a way that produces the appearance of antagonism as a side effect.

What do you believe I am attempting to accomplish by being this way?

That's the $64,000 dollar question. I have several hypotheses. One is that you want us (Bill and me in particular) to "buy" certain things, like SD, developments in neuro-cognition and so on. Another is that you want to get PCT more broadly accepted and that you have some definite ideas about how to get that to happen in which many of us (Bill and me in particular) have shown no interest.

�Can you provide me with some illustrations of what you are talking about?

I'd have to go through the archives, but I'm not that interested. The easiest thing, I think, would be for you to just tell me what you are trying to accomplish here.

Are you interested in resolving this, or are you simply interested in going about chasing strawmen?

I'd be happy to try to resolve this but I'm not optimistic about it.

�I find your dismissiveness of my ideas and the ideas of anyone who does not fit into your framework of thinking insulting and self-defeating.

I think this is why we're going to have trouble resolving this. You think I have been dismissive of your ideas and those of others. I think I have simply been critical of them, and willing to be shown that my criticisms are wrong. Maybe the way to work towards a resolution is for you to present an idea and show me what you would consider to be a reply that is not dismissive.

You feel put upon by me when I attempt to get some discussion going about matters that are important to me.

I don't feel put upon by you at all, Marc. What I feel is more like disappointment that you can't seem to use your obvious energy and enthusiasm in a way that I consider to be intellectually honest and constructive.

Are you blind to the unilateral controlling of others you are attempting? And this is not an accusation, this is a plea for some reflection.

My reflection leads me to conclude that I am certainly unilaterally controlling with whom and on what topics I collaborate. But I don't believe I am controlling others since I am not trying to get them to act in a particular way. I tend to collaborate with people who are already acting in a way that I would like them to act.

I would like to think that CSGnet could be a community that fosters and encourages cooperation among folks interested in perceptual control instead of the cat-fights and territorial disputes about who 'owns' which theory, and who is 'right'.

I don't think you can avoid what you call "cat-fights" (I'd call them debates) in any scientific discussion, though I think the level of discussion can be elevated considerably if it is based on actual working models and experimental observations. But even then things can get testy when you are dealing with ideas that are a disturbance to existing beliefs. The "cat-fights" over evolutionary theory, for example, continue to this day.

�Why aren't we discussing the pro's and con's of Glasser's ideas, or those of Ed Ford, Tom Bourbon, Martin Taylor, and many others?

I think we've already run through most of these at least once since CSGNet started in 1990 or so. But it seems to me that everyone is pretty much free to discuss the pros and cons of anyone's ideas. Go for it.

I don't know whether my ideas are any good, nor do I know whether those anyone else holds are as well.

Do you want to know?

Are you ready to walk the walk?

What walk?

Regards

Rick

···

---

Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.13.2046)]

In a message dated 12/13/2005 8:15:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.13.1710)]

Marc Abrams (2005.12.13.0435) –

What purpose to you believe I have in mind for this antagonism toward
you?

Antagonism is probably the wrong word because it implies
intentionality. I don’t think your purpose is to be antagonistic. I
think you have purposes that lead you to act in a way that produces the
appearance of antagonism as a side effect.

Sorry Rick, it is your interpretation of my actions that lead you to believe whatever it is you believe I am or I am not doing.

I’m trying to find out if I have anything to do with it. So your attempt to lay this all on me is a tad defensive, but expected.

Whatt do you believe I am attempting to accomplish by being this way?

That’s the $64,000 dollar question. I have several hypotheses. One is
that you want us (Bill and me in particular) to “buy” certain things,
like SD, developments in neuro-cognition and so on.

First, it would be helpful if you showed me some examples of what you are attempting to claim that I ‘do’. I believe I have said just the opposite of what you are claiming on many occasions.

I am not going to go back through the archives trying to find posts I need to ‘defend’ myself against strawman attacks such as this.

You can accuse me of anything you wish. I am asking you to provide the material that provided you with this idea.

Another is that you
want to get PCT more broadly accepted and that you have some definite
ideas about how to get that to happen in which many of us (Bill and me
in particular) have shown no interest.

So? I’m not sure what this has to do with me being ‘antagonistic’?

Why does the above cause a problem for you? I have no problem with it. I have also said on many occasions, that what you and Bill are attempting is not what I am attempting to do so I could care less where you or Bill want PCT to be.

Why would that make me 'antagonistic? I can’t do anything about the way you and Bill go about your business. I can try, but I know you are not interested. But the question is why are you angry for me trying to get you to see something from a different angle?

Why do you see this differently then you and Bill pushing your agenda?

I would like to see a central hub of discussion on perceptual control, no matter what the perspective, but I guess CSGnet is specifically set up to deal with PCT and one man’s view.

No problem, just say that then rather than trying to maintain the sophistry that CSGnet is some kind of ‘scientific’ forum for the exchange of ideas on perceptual control.

What CSGnet is in fact is a soapbox where the ‘sell’ is PCT and PCT exclusively. What is PCT? Well that depends on what the big Kahoona believes it is at any given point in time. Again, I stress that this too is not a crime or a big deal, but this is not science so don’t pretend to be something you are not.

Can you provide me with some illustrations of what you are talking
about?

I’d have to go through the archives, but I’m not that interested. The
easiest thing, I think, would be for you to just tell me what you are
trying to accomplish here.

No Rick, Oh, I agree you won’t go through the archives because you have no interest. That is certainly true but that lack of interest has more to do with your inability to actually find anything to back up your claims then anything else because I don’t think you would find anything resembling what you claim to be the case.

I’ll tell you what I think though. I think you have little regard for the ideas of others and I feel very sorry for you because you seem unable to reflect on your actions and see how you unintentionally continue to shot yourself in the foot.

Are you interested in resolving this, or are you simply interested in
going about chasing strawmen?

I’d be happy to try to resolve this but I’m not optimistic about it.

No, I don’t believe this is the case. The first thing anyone has to do in order to resolve a dispute with another is to be able to admit at least to themselves what part they played in it and what they may have been responsible for. But you will do neither because you do not have the courage or stomach for it. This is unfortunate but again not unexpected.

I don’t need to tell you what my ‘purpose’ is because I have already told you numerous times. You choose for whatever reasons to believe what you do. You then come back on and ask me to restate things you have already tossed aside as BS and dismissed out of hand. Believe what you will. I have little desire or incentive to try and convince you otherwise.

But you have no idea how lucky you are with me because I at least care enough to spend the time trying to explain to you what some of the issues are. Most folks would simply have disappeared or told you to go fly a kite.

I have no desire to play this silly game. I called you a phioney and you remain a phoney. Sure, I could go on and call you all sorts of names that would accurately describe you but I won’t waste my time because you are not worth it.

I now fully understand that this list is yours and Bill’s and that I have been is an unwelcome intrusion because I look to go in directions you and Bill are not comfortable with and don’t want to go in.

But this all would have been much easier on all of us if you were honest about the reasons you do not want to go in any other direction than the one you are going in, if you want to call this a ‘direction’.

It is because you can’t go in any other direction. You are bound and tied to a single idea that is unworkable as it stands and for 35 years you have not been able to figure a way out of the box you have created and the cement you have poured into this monolith you now call PCT. But as you admitted just the other day this foundational belief is all misplaced and should be foresaken.

Oops, too late pal. You folks need an abortion now.

It is unfortunate you don’t take Martin Taylor’s ideas seriously. You snicker behind his back, as you have done with me, but he provides hope for PCT. His ideas may or may not be on target, and I personally have no taste for the way he deals with me, but the man has ideas worth considering and you are blind to this. Again, very unfortunate, but that is life.

I find your dismissiveness of my ideas and the ideas of anyone who
does not fit into your framework of thinking insulting and
self-defeating.

I think this is why we’re going to have trouble resolving this. You
think I have been dismissive of your ideas and those of others. I think
I have simply been critical of them,

How can you be ‘critical’ of things you know nothing about and don’t understand? You don’t spend the time, and more importantly you don’t think it is worth you while for you to spend the time in order to find out.

But there is a reason for all this and again this falls on your lap. It is you that believes that any other ideas presented here are something to be vigorously attacked rather than examined. I mean, why bother trying to spend the time understanding someone else when all you want is for them to understand you. After all this is your theory and list, right? What difference does it make what anyone else thinks, or what ideas they may have?

You and Bill have continually espoused the notion that one must ‘wipe’ their mind clean in order to be able to ‘accept’ the notions of PCT. What a load of crap. Just another very convenient reason not to worry about understanding the ideas of others.

No Rick, your posts of the last several days have been more of your sophistry. In a few days all will be forgotten and life will resume. Your words care empty, meaningless and for me worthless.

and willing to be shown that my criticisms are wrong.

No, this has not been the case. When I have done so, you have been non responsive or worse, you have then been dismissive and nasty.

Maybe the way to work towards a resolution is for
you to present an idea and show me what you would consider to be a
reply that is not dismissive.

How about starting by answering the questions I posed instead of being a smart-ass with your consulting fees? But please don’t bother at this point. It is what you don’t do that is the problem and for that I am tired of repeating myself, but for a small fee paid in advance I would be happy to help you and repeat myself.

You feel put upon by me when I attempt to get some discussion going
about matters that are important to me.

I don’t feel put upon by you at all, Marc. What I feel is more like
disappointment that you can’t seem to use your obvious energy and
enthusiasm in a way that I consider to be intellectually honest and
constructive.

And why pray tell should I do what you want me to do? Again you contradict yourself by saying later in this post that you are not attempting to control my behavior. Nonsense, except it pisses you off that I won’t be allowed too. I’m not one of your sheeple. Get over it.

By ‘constructive’ I assume you mean not say a negative word about PCT and follow the Shepard. Well, I have no desire for either.

Are you blind to the unilateral controlling of others you are
attempting? And this is not an accusation, this is a plea for some
reflection.

My reflection leads me to conclude that I am certainly unilaterally
controlling with whom and on what topics I collaborate. But I don’t
believe I am controlling others since I am not trying to get them to
act in a particular way. I tend to collaborate with people who are
already acting in a way that I would like them to act.

Yes, very well said, even though I’m not sure you yourself fully understand and comprehend what you have said.

Your first sentence talks to the defensiveness you have about topics that create ‘error’ as you see it and y our last two sentences here reveal all. You are blind to how your controlling efforts interfere with the ability others have in controlling for their needs. The last sentence tells us you cannot cooperate honestly with anyone other than with the folks who share your ideas. All others may be ‘tolerated’ but given little respect and must be ‘attacked’ and ‘defeated’ lest they destabilize your ability to control.

So yes Rick, I agree that this is an apt description of how you deal with others. Has it gotten you what you wanted? To borrow a phrase from Mr. Ed Ford.

I don’t think so. You complain often enough and loud enough about the lack of acceptance of PCT. Who is going to carry the PCT flag when you and Bill are gone, Bryan Thalhammer? One billion Chinese?

You need to look in the mirror and see how you are contributing to all this, but again you won’t or you will do so superficially because again, I don’t believe you have the stomach or courage for it.

In fact Rick I am spending this time and writing this because I really don’t believe you are a bad person. I just don’t think you have any idea about how self destructive your actions are and you don’t seem to care.

But I believe even this comes from a sense you have that you feel your assumptions about others are ‘right’ and you have no need for any testing of those assumptions when you make them because you think these assumptions are obvious to others, but they are not.

I would like to think that CSGnet could be a community that fosters
and encourages cooperation among folks interested in perceptual
control instead of the cat-fights and territorial disputes about who
‘owns’ which theory, and who is ‘right’.

I don’t think you can avoid what you call “cat-fights” (I’d call them
debates) in any scientific discussion, though I think the level of
discussion can be elevated considerably if it is based on actual
working models and experimental observations.

It is interesting that you addressed one part of my desires but not the other. First, I am not opposed to disagreements. That after all is the basis for all discussion. I simply believe they could be conducted more profitably for all involved. You have no idea what I have in mind yet you already believe nothing can be done because you believe this to be so. How open are you to new ideas? Not very. Even your insistence on ‘models’. Rick, models provide no basis, and let me repeat this, no basis to believe that what ever is being modeled is in fact valid or truthful.

Mathematical modeling, whatever the form, is a logic tool, nothing else. It cannot reveal anything you don’t already know, and it cannot tellyou that what you know has any place in the real world.

It is your imagination and observations that make a model worthwhile. So although a model might be a wonderful tool for checking ones logic, it is useless for discovery of new things. Mathematics provides us with the tools to look at and rearrange things to see if we missed anything that might have been implicitly known and can be made explicit.

The only way to new discovery and a path to ‘truth’ is through a constant and never ending cycle of testing and observation.

So presenting your models is one avenue it is not the only one, and for me probably the less important path. As a theoretician it might be your only path, but I am not a theoretician nor do I want to be one.

For me a model without data is meaningless. Your ‘demos’ show me nothing about what I might expect out of a human controller. There are many ways to look at perceptual control and from many levels of abstraction.

I would like to see CSGnet become the hub of all activity for perceptual control research but I see this is an impossibility as long as you and Bill are involved with CSGnet. I have no problem with that.

If not CSGnet than another site will take this up some time in the future, but it will happen.

But even then things can
get testy when you are dealing with ideas that are a disturbance to
existing beliefs. The “cat-fights” over evolutionary theory, for
example, continue to this day.

Again, you misunderstand my position.

Why aren’t we discussing the pro’s and con’s of Glasser’s ideas, or
those of Ed Ford, Tom Bourbon, Martin Taylor, and many others?

I think we’ve already run through most of these at least once since
CSGNet started in 1990 or so. But it seems to me that everyone is
pretty much free to discuss the pros and cons of anyone’s ideas. Go for
it.

No thanks. I’d prefer to cooperate with others who are already acting as I would like them to be, or at least be willing to find out how I wanted them to act, why I wanted them to do so and figure out how it might benefit all.

I have ‘gone-for-it’ and got back zero. I guess my ideas are not worthwhile and my question worthless?

But I know better, and since there does not seem to be anyone on CSGnet who has the desire or knowledge to answer my questions I guess I will hang around and see who drops by CSGnet.

One never knows.

I don’t know whether my ideas are any good, nor do I know whether
those anyone else holds are as well.

Do you want to know?

Your in no position to tell me one way or the other. You are grossly ignorant of basic facts that I assume you will first begin to learn when you start reading that cognition text.

I know my ideas have holes, I don’t need you or anyone else to point them out to me, what I think might help is if someone actually had a better idea instead and had the reasons why it was a better idea rather than simply say, “look it up in B:CP on page xxx”

Sorry pal, that is not a ‘reason’ to believe in anything

Are you ready to walk the walk?

What walk?

When you figure it out get back to me.

Regards,

Marc