Dances With Cognitivists

[From Rick Marken (991004.1540)]

Steve Adey (991004.1400 GMT) --

As a serious investigator (at least conceptually, if not yet
actually coding), the sooner we get started on the more difficult
cognitive psychology problems, the sooner people will start
to take notice. Defending against Skinnerism seems to be a
waste of time since psychology has move on, even if it is
currently stuck with S-R terminology. I suggest that a key
issue is to spend more time on the higher levels that relate
to the cognitive school, and less time on the lower levels that
relate more directly to behaviorism.

What is "cognitive", anyway? Bill Powers has published a paper
describing a "cognitive control system" which demonstrates peoples'
ability to control for "cognitive" perceptions like, as I recall,
"x such that x + y = 25". And my trademark "Mind Reading" demo is
about as cognitive as you can get. You'll see this eventually when
I zip up my demos but others who think PCT ignores congnition can
see it at

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/ThreeTrack.html

In this demo the computer reads a person's intentions. I don't
know what is more cognitive than intentions. I think it's amazing
to see the computer tell you which of three squares you are
actually moving intentionally (an observer can't tell which is
being moved intentionally by just looking at the movement of the
three squares). When you "change intentions" and start moving a
new square the computer picks this up even though there is no
change in your overt behavior. PCT actually lets you track a
person's "cognitive states" (intentions) even when those states
are behaviorally _invisible_. I think my Mind Reading demo is
about as cognitive as anything can get. It may not be about what
_real_ cognitivists think of when they think of cognition (whatever
that might be); but it seems awfully cognitive to me.

Marc Abrams (991004.1513) --

Rick in his exuberance and enthusiasim often pooh pooh's the
significance of the cognitive aspects of the model sometimes
overzealously ( again in my opinion :slight_smile: ) "explaining" that
it's not needed to "explain" behavior. I don't think this has
been especially helpfull in gaining PCT some popularity.

I hope I didn't really say that the cognitive aspects of the
HPCT model (the higher level perceptions) are not needed to
explain behavior. What I can imagine having said (or what I
_should_ have said, if I didn't) is that it's important that
people understand how to study control of perception (using
the test to identify controlled variables) before they go off
and start studying "cognitive" aspects of the model.

Current cognitive psychology is built on the same cause-effect
research framework as the rest of psychology; so when cognitivists
start applying PCT to "cognitive behavior" before learning the
basic principle of control of perception (or, more to the point,
before learning about the phenomenon of controlled variables and
how to observe it) they are almost certain to get it (the PCT model
_and_ the research) wrong.

A good example of this is the work done by Carver and Scheier
on the apparently very cognitive concept of "self esteem".
These researchers assumed that PCT was just another theory that
was designed to explain the conventionally obtained (S-R) data
in their field. They understood the PCT model OK but they
didn't know that PCT is a model of control; nor did they know
anything about controlled variables or how to determine whether
a person was controlling a particular variable or not. The result,
of course, is the disaster that is the field called "self
regulation". Self regulation sounds very cognitive; but self
regulation researchers like Carver and Scheier have learned
nothing at all about the cognitive aspects of the controlling
being done by their subjects -- because they have learned nothing
about the _controlling_ done by their subjects. You can't learn
about controlling (cognitive or otherwise) if you don't know how
to determine what perceptions are being controlled.

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 [ Marc Abrams (991004.2339) ]

[From Rick Marken (991004.1540)]

What is "cognitive", anyway?

Linguistics, memory, imagination, How we make symbolic representations, the
upper levels of the PCT hierarchy, awareness, attention, emotion,
Reorganization, How we represent what we sense. Is that enough?

Bill Powers has published a paper
describing a "cognitive control system" which demonstrates peoples'
ability to control for "cognitive" perceptions like, as I recall,
"x such that x + y = 25".

What paper is that? I guess Rick it's tough to leave all of your Skinnerian
training behind.

And my trademark "Mind Reading" demo is

about as cognitive as you can get.

You got to be kidding. Exactly what is "cognitive" about it? What hypothesis
or theory is your demo supporting? That cognition exsists?

You'll see this eventually when I zip up my demos but others who think PCT

ignores congnition can

see it at

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/ThreeTrack.html

This is the tyoe of overzealous hype that turns a lot of people off
including me. PCT doesn't ignore cognition. it just doesn't go beyond
speculation at this point. Want me to post some of the old threads on
lingusitics, memory, reorgasnization. Besides some _very_ early work ( _non_
of which was never followed up ) no advances have been made in this area
since Bill published his book.

In this demo the computer reads a person's intentions. I don't
know what is more cognitive than intentions.

You don't get it. it's not a matter of whats more or less. _HOW_ do
intentions work? How do they work within the hierarchy? Is there a
hierarchy? Waht are the properties of the upper levels. What effects do
intentions have on our ability to control? Yeah Rick, you can't get more
cognitive then that. Pleeeez.

It may not be about what
_real_ cognitivists think of when they think of cognition (whatever
that might be); but it seems awfully cognitive to me.

Hey, now your catching on. It would be nice if real "Cognivists" ( whatever
the hell that means ) would look at HACT as basis for some of their work.
But I guess since you already have cognition "figured" out why should anyone
else bother.

I know Rick, Like your posts to bruce Abbott your looking beyond , to the
bigger picture and others who might be lurking on this net. You really
should think a bit more about the hyperbole you sometimes provide.

Marc Abrams (991004.1513) --

> Rick in his exuberance and enthusiasim often pooh pooh's the
> significance of the cognitive aspects of the model sometimes
> overzealously ( again in my opinion :slight_smile: ) "explaining" that
> it's not needed to "explain" behavior. I don't think this has
> been especially helpfull in gaining PCT some popularity.

I hope I didn't really say that the cognitive aspects of the
HPCT model (the higher level perceptions) are not needed to
explain behavior. What I can imagine having said (or what I
_should_ have said, if I didn't) is that it's important that
people understand how to study control of perception (using
the test to identify controlled variables) before they go off
and start studying "cognitive" aspects of the model.

See above for what you "usually" say, "You can't get anymore cognitive then
this". Your own words. Is that really the message? I think _this_ statement
right above makes a _whole_ lot of sense and I agree. but that is not how
you usually present it.

Current cognitive psychology is built on the same cause-effect
research framework as the rest of psychology; so when cognitivists
start applying PCT to "cognitive behavior" before learning the
basic principle of control of perception (or, more to the point,
before learning about the phenomenon of controlled variables and
how to observe it) they are almost certain to get it (the PCT model
_and_ the research) wrong.

Rick the _WORLD_ is built on cause-effect research. But there are a whole
bunch of people _besides_ Cognitive Psychologists who are interested in any
number of _different_ aspects of cognition. People who I believe might be
interested in pursuing some of their research if they knew about HACT.
Biologists are not interested in perceptions of any kind. But many
biological systems are in fact control systems. Your focus is a very narrow
and limiting one.

A good example of this is the work done by Carver and Scheier
on the apparently very cognitive concept of "self esteem".

Again your focus is on "Cognitive _Psychologists_". Don't make them strawmen
for everyone interested in various aspects of cognition

These researchers assumed that PCT was just another theory that
was designed to explain the conventionally obtained (S-R) data
in their field. They understood the PCT model OK but they
didn't know that PCT is a model of control; nor did they know
anything about controlled variables or how to determine whether
a person was controlling a particular variable or not. The result,
of course, is the disaster that is the field called "self
regulation". Self regulation sounds very cognitive; but self
regulation researchers like Carver and Scheier have learned
nothing at all about the cognitive aspects of the controlling
being done by their subjects -- because they have learned nothing
about the _controlling_ done by their subjects. You can't learn
about controlling (cognitive or otherwise) if you don't know how
to determine what perceptions are being controlled.

Very nice Rick. What the hell do we know about the cognitive processes? They
may not understand control theory but we are no further along in many other
important areas. Not because they are right. Because we simply don't know.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (991004.2220)]

Me:

Bill Powers has published a paper describing a "cognitive control
system" which demonstrates peoples' ability to control for
"cognitive" perceptions like, as I recall, "x such that
x + y = 25".

Marc Abrams (991004.2339) --

What paper is that?

I don't have the reference here. I actually read the paper before
if was published (I think it was published as a chapter in a book).
Bill, if you read this could you please post the reference.

I guess Rick it's tough to leave all of your Skinnerian
training behind.

I don't understand this. But I was not trained as a Skinnerian.
My PhD is in cognitive psychology. So my idea of what a
"cognitivist" is may be a bit outdated; but I used to know
many "cognitivists".

Me:

And my trademark "Mind Reading" demo is about as cognitive
as you can get.

Marc:

You got to be kidding. Exactly what is "cognitive" about it?

Cognitive psychology is the science of _mental_ phenomena. An
intention is a mental phenomenon. Observing the behavior of an
intention (which is what you are doing when you are watching
the behavior of the controlled square in the Mind Reading demo)
strikes me as the epitome cognitive science.

What hypothesis or theory is your demo supporting?

PCT.

That cognition exsists?

Not quite. It supports the hypothesis that an intention is an
internal (and secularly adjustable) reference for the state of
a perceptual variable.

This is the tyoe of overzealous hype that turns a lot of people off
including me.

Sorry. What was overzealous about it. Why is it "hype"?

Me:

In this demo the computer reads a person's intentions. I don't
know what is more cognitive than intentions.

Marc:

You don't get it.

Apparently not. Do you?

_HOW_ do intentions work?

By specifying the states of perceptual variables; the control loop
acts to keep these variables at the reference state.

How do they work within the hierarchy?

See my speadsheet hierarchy model.

Is there a hierarchy?

Yes.

Waht are the properties of the upper levels.

That's an empirical question. You can find out by testing
to determine what perceptual variables are controlled

What effects do intentions have on our ability to control?

This question makes no sense to me. Intentions (reference
signals) don't affect our ability to control; the parameters
of the control loop that keeps a perceptual variable at the
intended (reference) level are what affect out ability to
control.

Hey, now your catching on. It would be nice if real "Cognivists"
( whatever the hell that means )

To me, it means the kind of psychologists I was.

would look at HACT as basis for some of their work.

I've tried. They are not interested because they are sure
that cognitions (plans, programs, schemas, etc) cause behavior.
They have as little interest in the perceptions people control
as do the behaviorists.

But I guess since you already have cognition "figured" out
why should anyone else bother.

I never meant to imply that I have cognition figured out. All
I'm saying is that PCT has already demonstrated the ability
to explain some aspects of cognition (mental phenomena). PCT
also shows that, if you want to understand cognition, you have
to study it in the context of an understanding of organisms as
input controllers. So far, cognitive psychologists have not
done this. So their research results (their studies of memory,
imagination, attention, etc) are just as difficult to interpret,
from a PCT perspective, as are behaviorist studies of operant
conditioning.

You really should think a bit more about the hyperbole you
sometimes provide.

Why don't you help me out and tell me what I said that is
hyperbole and explain why it's hyperbole.

See above for what you "usually" say, "You can't get anymore
cognitive then this". Your own words. Is that really the
message?

Sure. What's wrong with them?

What the hell do we know about the cognitive processes?

Well, we know a little about the process of carrying out
intentions, don't we?

They [Carver and Scheier] may not understand control theory
but we are no further along in many other important areas.
Not because they are right. Because we simply don't know.

I really don't understand this. What are you trying to say here?

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 Bruce Gregory (991005.0635 EDT)]

Rick Marken (991004.1540)]

Self regulation sounds very cognitive; but self
regulation researchers like Carver and Scheier have learned
nothing at all about the cognitive aspects of the controlling
being done by their subjects -- because they have learned nothing
about the _controlling_ done by their subjects. You can't learn
about controlling (cognitive or otherwise) if you don't know how
to determine what perceptions are being controlled.

PCT is a theory of intentional action. The point you make can be restated in
terms of researchers who ignore the intentional nature of living systems.
This observation is true whether or not one subscribes to the PCT model of
realizing intentions--which, needless to say, I do.

Bruce Gregory

[From Bill Powers (991005.0748 MDT)]

Rick Marken (991004.2220)]

Marc Abrams (991004.2339) --

What paper is that?

I don't have the reference here. I actually read the paper before
if was published (I think it was published as a chapter in a book).
Bill, if you read this could you please post the reference.

Powers, William T. (1992). A cognitive control system. Chapter 13 in
Levine, R. L. & Fitzgerald, H. E. (eds), Analysis of Dynamic Psychological
Systems Vol. 2, p. 327-340 (New York: Plenum Press).

Best,

Bill P.

···

I guess Rick it's tough to leave all of your Skinnerian
training behind.

I don't understand this. But I was not trained as a Skinnerian.
My PhD is in cognitive psychology. So my idea of what a
"cognitivist" is may be a bit outdated; but I used to know
many "cognitivists".

Me:

And my trademark "Mind Reading" demo is about as cognitive
as you can get.

Marc:

You got to be kidding. Exactly what is "cognitive" about it?

Cognitive psychology is the science of _mental_ phenomena. An
intention is a mental phenomenon. Observing the behavior of an
intention (which is what you are doing when you are watching
the behavior of the controlled square in the Mind Reading demo)
strikes me as the epitome cognitive science.

What hypothesis or theory is your demo supporting?

PCT.

That cognition exsists?

Not quite. It supports the hypothesis that an intention is an
internal (and secularly adjustable) reference for the state of
a perceptual variable.

This is the tyoe of overzealous hype that turns a lot of people off
including me.

Sorry. What was overzealous about it. Why is it "hype"?

Me:

In this demo the computer reads a person's intentions. I don't
know what is more cognitive than intentions.

Marc:

You don't get it.

Apparently not. Do you?

_HOW_ do intentions work?

By specifying the states of perceptual variables; the control loop
acts to keep these variables at the reference state.

How do they work within the hierarchy?

See my speadsheet hierarchy model.

Is there a hierarchy?

Yes.

Waht are the properties of the upper levels.

That's an empirical question. You can find out by testing
to determine what perceptual variables are controlled

What effects do intentions have on our ability to control?

This question makes no sense to me. Intentions (reference
signals) don't affect our ability to control; the parameters
of the control loop that keeps a perceptual variable at the
intended (reference) level are what affect out ability to
control.

Hey, now your catching on. It would be nice if real "Cognivists"
( whatever the hell that means )

To me, it means the kind of psychologists I was.

would look at HACT as basis for some of their work.

I've tried. They are not interested because they are sure
that cognitions (plans, programs, schemas, etc) cause behavior.
They have as little interest in the perceptions people control
as do the behaviorists.

But I guess since you already have cognition "figured" out
why should anyone else bother.

I never meant to imply that I have cognition figured out. All
I'm saying is that PCT has already demonstrated the ability
to explain some aspects of cognition (mental phenomena). PCT
also shows that, if you want to understand cognition, you have
to study it in the context of an understanding of organisms as
input controllers. So far, cognitive psychologists have not
done this. So their research results (their studies of memory,
imagination, attention, etc) are just as difficult to interpret,
from a PCT perspective, as are behaviorist studies of operant
conditioning.

You really should think a bit more about the hyperbole you
sometimes provide.

Why don't you help me out and tell me what I said that is
hyperbole and explain why it's hyperbole.

See above for what you "usually" say, "You can't get anymore
cognitive then this". Your own words. Is that really the
message?

Sure. What's wrong with them?

What the hell do we know about the cognitive processes?

Well, we know a little about the process of carrying out
intentions, don't we?

They [Carver and Scheier] may not understand control theory
but we are no further along in many other important areas.
Not because they are right. Because we simply don't know.

I really don't understand this. What are you trying to say here?

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 Bruce Gregory (991005.1050 EDT)]

Rick Marken (991004.2220)

I've tried. They are not interested because they are sure
that cognitions (plans, programs, schemas, etc) cause behavior.
They have as little interest in the perceptions people control
as do the behaviorists.

I think the fondness cognitivists have for viewing the brain as a
computational system epitomizes the problem. Computers are not
intentional systems.

Bruce Gregory

from [ Marc Abrams (991005.1009) ]

[From Rick Marken (991004.2220)]

Rick there might be some mis-communication going on so rather then answer
your post point by point, let me restate my position and see if we can't
come to some agreement.

My definition of Cognition seems to differ from yours. My definition seems
to be a bit broader. To me cognition is about how we know what we know and
is not necessarily associated _directly_ with behavior. Psychologists of all
ilk's ( both behaviorists, cognovits and those in-between :slight_smile: ) are focused
on _behavior_. Areas of cognition ( in my opinion ) deal with issues of
knowledge representation, memory, How our brain represents the knowledge our
senses and imaginations provide. This would involve reorganization ( i.e.
learning ), awareness, and emotion. None of which seem to be critical for
_all_ behaviors.

Now, whether you believe "Behavior" is caused by the environment
behaviorism ) or is internally generated by plans and/or schemas
Cognovits ), believing in PCT has been a problem. No question. But there
are others out there dealing in cognitive issues ( my definition :slight_smile: ) who
might be able to help us with the upper levels of the hierarchy and other
issues ( memory, awareness, emotion ) _if_ they understood HACT. Not PCT,
but HACT. What's the difference? Two major things. The name, and the
attitude one takes in presenting and talking with others about Powerisian
Control. Bill's attempt in his _Origins of Purpose_ paper to address
Biologists was a magnificent effort. Tom Bourban's attempt at attending the
conference and getting published in _Comparative Approaches to Cognitive
Science_ were attempts to reach out. Unfortunately nothing much developed
from either attempt.

I think the book provides a good outline and definition of "Cognitive
Science"

1) Intentions and the Organization of Behavior
2) Representation
3) Memory and Attention
4) Communication
5) Motivation and Emotion

Domains of interest with regard to these areas are;
Robotics
AI
Neural nets
Life Sciences
Physical Sciences

I am not suggesting that everyone in all of these areas will run to
understand HACT. But I do believe that all of these areas can benefit from
and provide help to our understanding of HACT.

Hope this helps clear things up.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (991005.1315)]

Marc Abrams (991005.1009)

My definition of Cognition seems to differ from yours. My
definition seems to be a bit broader.

OK. No problem. Your definition is fine with me. It certainly
includes what I call cognitions (things like intentions and
higher level perceptions).

there are others out there dealing in cognitive issues ( my
definition :slight_smile: ) who might be able to help us with the upper
levels of the hierarchy and other issues ( memory, awareness,
emotion ) _if_ they understood HACT.

I have no problem with this. We could always use some help.

I am not suggesting that everyone in all of these areas will
run to understand HACT. But I do believe that all of these
areas can benefit from and provide help to our understanding
of HACT.

Great. We're here. If they want to help, please tell them
where to find us.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

from [ Marc Abrams (991005.1833) ]

[From Rick Marken (991005.1315)]

Great. We're here. If they want to help, please tell them
where to find us.

Sometimes, one has to go out and _get_ what one wants. People will come when
they know that there might be some help for _them_ in _their_ endeavors.

I'm gonna give it a shot.

I don't cosider "selling" HACT beneath me, especially when their might be
some mutual benefits.

If I need some help i'll give you a call :slight_smile:

Marc