# Declaration of Independence

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/declaration-of-independence/3373>\
**Category:** CSG2015\
**Created:** [September 21, 2015, 11:29am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/declaration-of-independence/3373 "2015-09-21T11:29:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [September 30, 2015, 4:46am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/declaration-of-independence/3373/21 "2015-09-30T04:46:43Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2015.09.30.00.14]

> **···**
>
> On 2015/09/29 9:38 PM, PHILIP JERAIR  
> YERANOSIAN wrote:
> 
> > ```
> > MT: I certainly
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > understand that you believe, with Wolfram, that the Universe  
> > is constructed by program, but I doubt that he would go so far  
> > as to assert that the programming technique of the architect  
> > of the Universe is what we puny humans currently use to work  
> > with sequential von Neumann machines. What I don’t understand  
> > is why you believe this, and even if it happened to be true,  
> > why it would be relevant to what Rick said.
> 
> > ```
> > PY: I didn't
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > say the universe is constructed by program…the universe is  
> > constructed from hydrogen, obviously. What I did say is  
> > that the theory of “types” is relevant to understanding  
> > what a perception is in the context of a computer program.
> 
> ```
> Why is a computer program relevant to anything that
> 
> ```
> 
> goes on in the brain? I thought that the idea that the brain  
> worked like a computer was an idea that had been laid to rest half  
> a century ago, Are you wanting to resurrect that ghost now?
> 
> ```
> What you may have had in your mind is different from what you did
> 
> ```
> 
> say, which was that a perceived rectangle could be treated like an  
> object in object-oriented programming, in that the perceived  
> properties of the rectangle were not created by the perceiver but  
> were actively produced by the rectangle, on request from the  
> perceptual process. That sounded to me as though the rectangle was  
> a program object, with methods and accessors (words you used), a  
> la Wolfram. And in your explanation now, Where is the  
> contradiction between the Universe being constructed by program  
> and it being constructed from hydrogen (an interesting supposition  
> in itself)?
> 
> > ```
> > And I would add
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > that the detailed exposition of what goes on behind the  
> > scenes in the computer is very important.
> 
> ```
> To a circuit designer, yes, but to someone interested
> 
> ```
> 
> in what goes on in a brain that works very differently than a von  
> Neumann computer???
> 
> > ```
> > For
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > instance, virtual memory is very relevant to consciousness.
> 
> ```
> It's dangerous to give metaphors the status of
> 
> ```
> 
> equations. Even in a constellation of parallel von Neumann  
> computers, the concept of “virtual memory” is ill-defined. In a  
> brain, I’m not sure what is a good analogy. As for consciousness,  
> there have been so many pet theories both within the CSGnet group  
> and in the world at large, that for any one of them to be more  
> plausible than the rest, it has to have an awful lot of data  
> showing that in _this_ set of conditions something should be, and  
> is, conscious, and in _that_ set of conditions something should  
> not be, and is not.
> 
> > ```
> > If that's
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > not understandable to you or to Rick or to anyone  
> > else here, I will have to switch venues. The "puny"ness of  
> > humanity is too much for me to bear.
> 
> ```
> You control your own perceptions by your actions. If
> 
> ```
> 
> the puniness of humanity disturbs some perception you are  
> controlling, I imagine your magnificence can devise an action that  
> would bring that perception nearer to its reference value.
> 
> ```
> If it is of any solace, I have maintained for at least 60 years
> 
> ```
> 
> that “intelligence” has not yet evolved in the biological world,  
> and that if it appears on this earth, it will probably be in some  
> kind of cyborg or a network of cyborgs. But we muddle along as  
> best we can with what we have. Sorry about that.
> 
> ```
> Martin
> 
> ```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [September 30, 2015, 4:29pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/declaration-of-independence/3373/22 "2015-09-30T16:29:30Z")

</div>

BP : I’m certainly not the expert, …

HB : You could be if you’d study your fathers’ books.

BP : ….and am not picking ssides.I am confident in the extent of knowledge of PCT shown by our moderator, and by the core group with whom I’m most familiar, and by whom most of the contributions here are made.

HB : It seems to me that this things doesn’t fit. Whether you don’t peek sides so you are confident in the extent of knowledge of all members or you peek Rick’s moderater side and side of »core group« who become »first order member« obviously »peeked« because of your long friendship with your familiy (as you pointed out once in our conversation«.

»Others« who are not moderators and are not in »core group« are obviously »second order« members.

But I’m curious whether Rupert Young and Martin Taylor belong to »core group« or group of others. If they don’t belong to »core group« I think that understanding PCT is more on the side of »others« then »core group«. If you need evidence there is lot of them in previous conversations with Rick and some »core group« members. Of course there are some »core group members« who have my full respect. But some don’t. But also the »core group« members are not enough sometimes to stop Rick (moderator). Rick can be  also insulting to respected »core group mambers (ex. Kent) or can drive them to »critical« state (ex. Bruce A.).  Rick is hard to »control«. I know it’s hard for you. But somebody should say something to him about what and why. He simply sometimes has to be »straighten« from his »self-regulation« course. We (others) proved it so many times.  And also some »core-members« did.

I think that also »others« deserve some repsect for the really hard work they’ve done here on CSGnet, preserving your father’s PCT. Rick is sometimes very hard to perusade, although he is learning. But if you »peeked side« of Rick (moderator) I respect your choice. It’s your privilege.

BP : While teaching, there is always more to learn. As you all know, this is one purpose of this forum. A close examination of one’s knowledge by colleagues, and by one’s students, is how one tests and re-examines understanding.

HB : This would be fine if it would be so. But by my oppinion is not.

BP : Hard work can become quite personal. It involves a huge investment in time. I appreciate the very deep well of knowledge from which each of you are dipping. This is complicated, and it can be difficult at times to put one’s understanding in black and white, to “make” others see what one is seeing.

HB : Agree…

/p\>

BP : When there is a sticking point, it’s time to come to task and pick through it together.

HB : Well I think it’s hard to put together »picking one isde«, »swallow« all insults Rick has made through time. I doubt that giving him »protecition« and cooperation among all members fits together.  If you’ll manage it I’ll make a bow in front of you.

BP : This is not a competition,

HB ; Good. Explain it to Rick (moderator)

RM earlier : I kind of hate to win debate points this way… (in conversation with me)

HB : I think Barb that you should clealy know what you want.

Moderating : One who holds moderate views or opinions, be less extreme, intense or violent…

Winning : The act of one that wins; victory.

Thrusting : To force into a specified condition or situation:

Forcing : Power made operative against resistance; exertion…

Rick can be very polite and very nasty. But I think he acted in all senses. Two personalities in one. Like Mr. Hyde and dr. Jekyill

BP : …it’s a challenge to see how best thhese different areas can be clarified by a body of highly knowledgeable scientists. In the end, that is what will make all of this more accessible to others.

HB : I diidn’t want to say anything different  Just that your father’s knowledge is preserved as it is, so that Bill’s work will be accesible to other generation. I’m one of the rare »other« members that had all the time citating your father’s work. And what do I get back. Owners have full confidence into moderator, who is mostly presenting his RCT (Rick’s version of self-regulation) on the PCT forum, mostly without Bill’s citaions. And that is enough for owners to beleive him. I’m shocked, but I’ll take it as you wish.

Do you imagine Barb, how hard is sometimes to understand what Rick is saying  and than seek in Bill’s literature for right thougts (citations). Sometimes it takes hours, days, just because Rick don’t want to do it although he has your trust. I think that he should do it, he should present your fathers’ work »as it is« not only through Risk’s »perceptual constructs«. This is second hand knowledge and distortions to »what it is« can be very high. See »B:CP« how it works.

Why don’t you study all the books from your father ? I needed a couple years, you should need less time as your language is native.

Â

In the last case with »coin game« it was so obvious Rick’s manipulation and Bill’s explanation is so short (1 page and a half) that I think everybody could take a little time to understand what your father really wrote about it or what he wanted to say. Isn’t it better if we »hear« original PCT and not secondary interpretation which could be wrong.

But I understand you. I’m educated to understand others. At least I’m trying to. Â But everyone has it’s limits. And I think I’m on the edge or over. So I wish you really luck with preserving PCT.

Best from the second order member, maybe last time.

Boris

Respectfully,

\*barb

BH wrote:

> **···**
>
> **From:** [bara0361@gmail.com](mailto:bara0361@gmail.com) [[mailto:bara0361@gmail.com](mailto:bara0361@gmail.com)]  
> **Sent:** Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:19 PM  
> **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> **Subject:** Re: Declaration of Independence
> 
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Boris Hartman [boris.hartman@masicom.net](mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net) wrote:
> 
> > This time I’ll not comment, but I’ll invite all members to participate in deciding whether Rick’s interpretation of Bill’s text is right or wrong. He mostly wrote about »Coin game« (B:CP, 2005, p. 236).
> 
> > 
> 
> > I think that Rick made similary to Philip his own »construction« based on his »behavioristic« psychological knowledge. So simply I think that he read Bill’s thoughts as he wanted to read them not »as they are«. Although also »as they are« can be critical, when there are many obsevers of the same »X« - external events.
> 
> > 
> 
> > But I’m inviting Rick to precisely define symbols he is using in his explanation of »Coin game« and in answer to Bruce and Fred, because I think that using symbols without understanidng their precise meaning can be misleading and manipulative.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Of course, also Powers ladies are kindly invited to participate in discussion about Rick’s interpretation of Bill’s work or they will just beleive Rick »on word«.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Best,
> 
> > 
> 
> > Boris
> 
> > 
> 
> > **From:** Richard Marken [[mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)]  
> > **Sent:** Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:15 PM  
> > **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> > **Subject:** Re: Declaration of Independence
> 
> > [From Rick Marken (2015.09.24.1215)]
> 
> > > Bruce Nevin 2015.09.23.11:33 PT]
> 
> > > Fred Nickols: What, then, is the difference between X and my perception of X? Very little as far as I can see. And, for practical purposes, next to none.
> 
> > > Fred, You might want to control X as I perceive it.
> 
> > > BN: Yes, that means controlling your perception of my perception of X. We do that all the time. In the methodology of PCT, you do it by experimentally disturbing what you perceive to be my controlled variable. So your perception of my perception of X can be based on sensory input from the environment; it need not be entirely imagined. (Though of course imagination has a much larger role when you don’t Test for the CV.)
> 
> > RM: The problem here is the idea that there is an X out there that can be perceived in different ways.
> 
> > What would it mean to perceive X in different ways? It means that your perception, p, is a function of X, p = f(X), and the different ways of perceiving X represent different functions of X. But if X is just a scalar physical variable (as it appears to be when it is symbolized as X) then whatever different forms f() might take in different people, the difference between perceptions of X will only be in terns of the perceived magnitude of X. So a 60 dB tone might sound louder (or softer) to me than it does to you. But clearly there are other ways that perceptions of the same reality can differ. So something is missing here.
> 
> > RM: What’s missing is this. In PCT, what you call “X”, the reality that is “out there”, is actually set of physical variables, v.i, that is best represented as X = [v.1, v.2…v.n] as it is in Fig. 1, p. 66 of LCS I. Your perception of X is then represented as p = f(v.1, v.2…v.n). Different ways of perceiving X are again represented by different forms of the perceptual function, f(). But now, when p is a function of more than one physical variable, the different ways of perceiving X can differ in other ways besides magnitude. For example, if p = f(v.1, v.2), the perception of X could be p = v.1+v.2 or p = v.1\*v.2.
> 
> > RM: In the Test for the Controlled Variable, we determine the perception that another person is controlling by computing various possible perceptions of the same situation (either using our own perceptual systems, as in the coin game, or actually computing them using a computer, as in the “What is Size” and “Mind Reading” demos) and see whether those perceptions are protected from disturbances. The perceptions that the researcher “computes” are called q.i – a perceptual aspect of X as perceived by the experimenter. So, in the “What is size” demo, if S is controlling p = w \* h and E is observing the behavior of q.i = w \* h, then E will be able to see that S is controlling a perception of X that is equivalent to w \* h rather than w+h.
> 
> > RM: An example of doing this where q.i is computed using E’s own perceptual functions (and where function f() is a a lot more complex than w \* h or w+h) is given in a description of the coin game in B:CP. Here, if S is perceiving and controlling a “zig zag pattern of coins” and E is perceiving the zig zag pattern of coins and sees that this perception is protected from disturbances (such as E moving the coins out of a zig zag pattern) then E knows that he/she is perceiving what S is perceiving and controlling.
> 
> > RM: Hope this clears things up. I think the main thing to understand is that p and q.i are the same variable. p is not a function of q.i; both p and q.i are the same function of physical variables, where p is what is seen from the perspective of the control system and q.i is the same thing seen from the perspective of an observer of the control system.
> 
> > Best
> 
> > Rick
> 
> > > This is the basis of intersubjective agreement. Intersubjective agreement is the definition of objectivity in science. In other words, this provides a definition of X as distinct from one’s perception of X. A provisional definition, of course. But we already knew that about science.
> 
> > > Collective control is related to this.
> 
> > > > /B
> 
> > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Fred Nickols [fred@nickols.us](mailto:fred@nickols.us) wrote:
> 
> > > [From Fred Nickols (2015.09.21.0722)]
> 
> > >
> 
> > > We act to control what we perceive.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > What we control are our perceptions. When it comes to purposeful, intentional acts, what we want to control is the object of our perceptions, some variable “out there.� Let’s call it X.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > For some practical purposes we can treat X and perceptions of X as though they are one and the same. For other, equally practical purposes, we dare not treat those two impostors the same.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > I want X to be in a certain state. I act. My perceptions inform me if I succeeded. As a control system, all I can do is control my perceptual input, my perceptions. As a purposeful human being, my perceptions serve to inform me whether or not I succeeded, that I did or didn’t control X.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > What seems to be missing from PCT is _me_. Those are _my_ goals. Those are _my_ actions. Those are _my_ perceptions. That is _my_ world.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > What, then, is the difference between X and my perception of X? Very little as far as I can see. And, for practical purposes, next to none.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > I hereby declare my independence of and lack of interest in discussions regarding the control of X or the control of perceptions of X.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Regards,
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Fred Nickols, CPT
> 
> > > [**DISTANCE**](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nickols.us_&d=AwMFAg&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=ASBLgtdGXEXvNmUZEtEsgRhmReQPnUgNb7XRBUPX7go&s=PWzaK46jfVLd0zUPQkmnepdqx6QKr8_sbE3O4UqSoRE&e=) \*\* CONSULTING\*\*
> 
> > > _ **“Assistance at a Distance�** _
> 
> > > [**The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room**](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nickols.us_toolroom.html&d=AwMFAg&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=ASBLgtdGXEXvNmUZEtEsgRhmReQPnUgNb7XRBUPX7go&s=zUh8f35S8u0FQEP7OLZPOKomvbw6SDHFVqa-vcLR8Ig&e=)
> 
> > > _ **Be sure you measure what you want.** _
> 
> > > _ **Be sure you want what you measure.** _
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > 
> 
> > –
> 
> > Richard S. Marken
> 
> > [www.mindreadings.com](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mindreadings.com&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=J2TGCfOn3cmu6NVHW3tiIOMUhhN0tfyIpkUBdrMEH2Q&s=JyGE6zS_lpDXRtYEoIIzwNV6relyXkW5wDiHEjekums&e=)  
> > Author of [Doing Research on Purpose](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Doing-2DResearch-2DPurpose-2DExperimental-2DPsychology_dp_0944337554_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1407342866-26sr-3D8-2D1-26keywords-3Ddoing-2Bresearch-2Bon-2Bpurpose&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=J2TGCfOn3cmu6NVHW3tiIOMUhhN0tfyIpkUBdrMEH2Q&s=MF0oQy42d_Bq8zdxmnfbzPVQhIPUT5u0hNuS2GeVucU&e=).
> 
> > Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/bc79bd/32.png) [@PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO)\
**Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 12:18am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/declaration-of-independence/3373/23 "2015-10-01T00:18:54Z")

</div>

To Martin and Bruce

MT: I thought that the idea that the brain worked like a computer was an idea that had been laid to rest half a century ago, Are you wanting to resurrect that ghost now?

PY: I am wanting to consume that ghost’s soul.

MT: Even in a constellation of parallel von Neumann computers, the concept of “virtual memory” is ill-defined.

“Virtual memory is a feature of an operating system that allows a computer to compensate for shortages of physical memory by temporarily transferring pages of data from random access memory to disk storage.”

MT: I have maintained for at least 60 years that “intelligence” has not yet evolved in the biological world, and that if it appears on this earth, it will probably be in some kind of cyborg or a network of cyborgs.

PY: Wow. That’s an adorable fantasy you’ve got going on there. A cyborg…Well, I think it’s just about time that I told everyone here the truth about me…I’m a cybernetic organism - pseudoflesh over metal endoskeleton. My name is T2000 and I am here to prove the Goldbach conjecture.

BN: The heart of PCT methodology is the building of generative models.

“In probability and statistics, a generative model is a model for randomly generating observable-data values, typically given some hidden parameters. It specifies a joint probability distribution over observation and label sequences.”

PY: I don’t see the relation. What do you mean generative models?

BN: You are advocating more sophisticated mathematical tools than are typical in PCT research.

PY: Something like that. I see others building robots that are more sophisticated than the ones I see in PCT. I’m wondering why.

BN: Are there aspects of the behavior of living things that can only be analyzed and modeled with a more sophisticated methodology?

PY: Well, I don’t know. I would like to see a PCT program demonstrate walking behavior. I’ve seen robots walk on multiple limbs, why doesn’t PCT have these kinds of gimmicks.

BN: what is the motivation for advocating greater complexity?

PY: I want to see walking behavior!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![amatic](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/13edae/32.png) [@amatic](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/amatic)\
**Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 7:42am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/declaration-of-independence/3373/24 "2015-10-01T07:42:31Z")

</div>

[From Adam Matic]

Philip,

A generative model in this context models a single organism or some aspect of its behavior. A single feedback loop in a target tracking experiment can generate data to be compared to a single human participant. That is in contrast to statistical models that aim to capture a distribution of data from a group of participants. It’s a bit unfortunate that there are techniques in statistics also called ‘generative models’, but what can you do…

As for robots and walking behavior, you might like Richard Kennaways hexapod simulation: [http://www2.cmp.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/Robotics/Archy/Archy.html](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www2.cmp.uea.ac.uk_-7Ejrk_Robotics_Archy_Archy.html&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=VHgfKFbfSugn5A8QqcVHvqUCBgjM48bhm38VgxNVw0k&s=NR4cs_lhry-RIU_iSvgxlZroJ3ukE0l3v0lXLXBHGeo&e=)

There was an attempt to make a robot based on that simulation, a few years ago, but it is still awaiting for a full implementation.

What do you think of the ‘Little Man’ demo? And the arm coordination and arm reorganization programs from LCSIII? They seem to me rather more simple and at the same time more powerful methods of modeling sensorimotor systems to be used in either robotics or 3D animation, than any of the other methods I’ve seen.

Adam

> **···**
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:18 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
> 
> > To Martin and Bruce
> 
> > 
> 
> > MT: I thought that the idea that the brain worked like a computer was an idea that had been laid to rest half a century ago, Are you wanting to resurrect that ghost now?
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: I am wanting to consume that ghost’s soul.
> 
> > 
> 
> > MT: Even in a constellation of parallel von Neumann computers, the concept of “virtual memory” is ill-defined.
> 
> > 
> 
> > “Virtual memory is a feature of an operating system that allows a computer to compensate for shortages of physical memory by temporarily transferring pages of data from random access memory to disk storage.”
> 
> > MT: I have maintained for at least 60 years that “intelligence” has not yet evolved in the biological world, and that if it appears on this earth, it will probably be in some kind of cyborg or a network of cyborgs.
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: Wow. That’s an adorable fantasy you’ve got going on there. A cyborg…Well, I think it’s just about time that I told everyone here the truth about me…I’m a cybernetic organism - pseudoflesh over metal endoskeleton. My name is T2000 and I am here to prove the Goldbach conjecture.
> 
> > 
> 
> > BN: The heart of PCT methodology is the building of generative models.
> 
> > 
> 
> > “In probability and statistics, a generative model is a model for randomly generating observable-data values, typically given some hidden parameters. It specifies a joint probability distribution over observation and label sequences.”
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: I don’t see the relation. What do you mean generative models?
> 
> > 
> 
> > BN: You are advocating more sophisticated mathematical tools than are typical in PCT research.
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: Something like that. I see others building robots that are more sophisticated than the ones I see in PCT. I’m wondering why.
> 
> > 
> 
> > BN: Are there aspects of the behavior of living things that can only be analyzed and modeled with a more sophisticated methodology?
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: Well, I don’t know. I would like to see a PCT program demonstrate walking behavior. I’ve seen robots walk on multiple limbs, why doesn’t PCT have these kinds of gimmicks.
> 
> > 
> 
> > BN: what is the motivation for advocating greater complexity?
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: I want to see walking behavior!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 1:07am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/declaration-of-independence/3373/25 "2015-10-02T01:07:41Z")

</div>

Thanks, Adam.

> **···**
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Adam Matic [adam.matic@gmail.com](mailto:adam.matic@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > [From Adam Matic]
> 
> > Philip,
> 
> > 
> 
> > A generative model in this context models a single organism or some aspect of its behavior. A single feedback loop in a target tracking experiment can generate data to be compared to a single human participant. That is in contrast to statistical models that aim to capture a distribution of data from a group of participants. It’s a bit unfortunate that there are techniques in statistics also called ‘generative models’, but what can you do…
> 
> > 
> 
> > As for robots and walking behavior, you might like Richard Kennaways hexapod simulation: [http://www2.cmp.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/Robotics/Archy/Archy.html](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www2.cmp.uea.ac.uk_-7Ejrk_Robotics_Archy_Archy.html&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=VHgfKFbfSugn5A8QqcVHvqUCBgjM48bhm38VgxNVw0k&s=NR4cs_lhry-RIU_iSvgxlZroJ3ukE0l3v0lXLXBHGeo&e=)
> 
> > There was an attempt to make a robot based on that simulation, a few years ago, but it is still awaiting for a full implementation.
> 
> > 
> 
> > What do you think of the ‘Little Man’ demo? And the arm coordination and arm reorganization programs from LCSIII? They seem to me rather more simple and at the same time more powerful methods of modeling sensorimotor systems to be used in either robotics or 3D animation, than any of the other methods I’ve seen.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Adam
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:18 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
> 
> > To Martin and Bruce
> 
> > 
> 
> > MT: I thought that the idea that the brain worked like a computer was an idea that had been laid to rest half a century ago, Are you wanting to resurrect that ghost now?
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: I am wanting to consume that ghost’s soul.
> 
> > 
> 
> > MT: Even in a constellation of parallel von Neumann computers, the concept of “virtual memory” is ill-defined.
> 
> > 
> 
> > “Virtual memory is a feature of an operating system that allows a computer to compensate for shortages of physical memory by temporarily transferring pages of data from random access memory to disk storage.”
> 
> > MT: I have maintained for at least 60 years that “intelligence” has not yet evolved in the biological world, and that if it appears on this earth, it will probably be in some kind of cyborg or a network of cyborgs.
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: Wow. That’s an adorable fantasy you’ve got going on there. A cyborg…Well, I think it’s just about time that I told everyone here the truth about me…I’m a cybernetic organism - pseudoflesh over metal endoskeleton. My name is T2000 and I am here to prove the Goldbach conjecture.
> 
> > 
> 
> > BN: The heart of PCT methodology is the building of generative models.
> 
> > 
> 
> > “In probability and statistics, a generative model is a model for randomly generating observable-data values, typically given some hidden parameters. It specifies a joint probability distribution over observation and label sequences.”
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: I don’t see the relation. What do you mean generative models?
> 
> > 
> 
> > BN: You are advocating more sophisticated mathematical tools than are typical in PCT research.
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: Something like that. I see others building robots that are more sophisticated than the ones I see in PCT. I’m wondering why.
> 
> > 
> 
> > BN: Are there aspects of the behavior of living things that can only be analyzed and modeled with a more sophisticated methodology?
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: Well, I don’t know. I would like to see a PCT program demonstrate walking behavior. I’ve seen robots walk on multiple limbs, why doesn’t PCT have these kinds of gimmicks.
> 
> > 
> 
> > BN: what is the motivation for advocating greater complexity?
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: I want to see walking behavior!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [October 2, 2015, 1:52pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/declaration-of-independence/3373/26 "2015-10-02T13:52:56Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2015.10.02.0655)]

> **···**
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Bruce Nevin [bnhpct@gmail.com](mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > BN: Thanks, Adam.
> 
> RM: I second that emotion.
> 
> Best
> 
> Rick
> 
> –
> 
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Adam Matic [adam.matic@gmail.com](mailto:adam.matic@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > [From Adam Matic]
> 
> > Philip,
> 
> > 
> 
> > A generative model in this context models a single organism or some aspect of its behavior. A single feedback loop in a target tracking experiment can generate data to be compared to a single human participant. That is in contrast to statistical models that aim to capture a distribution of data from a group of participants. It’s a bit unfortunate that there are techniques in statistics also called ‘generative models’, but what can you do…
> 
> > 
> 
> > As for robots and walking behavior, you might like Richard Kennaways hexapod simulation: [http://www2.cmp.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/Robotics/Archy/Archy.html](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www2.cmp.uea.ac.uk_-7Ejrk_Robotics_Archy_Archy.html&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=VHgfKFbfSugn5A8QqcVHvqUCBgjM48bhm38VgxNVw0k&s=NR4cs_lhry-RIU_iSvgxlZroJ3ukE0l3v0lXLXBHGeo&e=)
> 
> > There was an attempt to make a robot based on that simulation, a few years ago, but it is still awaiting for a full implementation.
> 
> > 
> 
> > What do you think of the ‘Little Man’ demo? And the arm coordination and arm reorganization programs from LCSIII? They seem to me rather more simple and at the same time more powerful methods of modeling sensorimotor systems to be used in either robotics or 3D animation, than any of the other methods I’ve seen.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Adam
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:18 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
> 
> > To Martin and Bruce
> 
> > 
> 
> > MT: I thought that the idea that the brain worked like a computer was an idea that had been laid to rest half a century ago, Are you wanting to resurrect that ghost now?
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: I am wanting to consume that ghost’s soul.
> 
> > 
> 
> > MT: Even in a constellation of parallel von Neumann computers, the concept of “virtual memory” is ill-defined.
> 
> > 
> 
> > “Virtual memory is a feature of an operating system that allows a computer to compensate for shortages of physical memory by temporarily transferring pages of data from random access memory to disk storage.”
> 
> > MT: I have maintained for at least 60 years that “intelligence” has not yet evolved in the biological world, and that if it appears on this earth, it will probably be in some kind of cyborg or a network of cyborgs.
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: Wow. That’s an adorable fantasy you’ve got going on there. A cyborg…Well, I think it’s just about time that I told everyone here the truth about me…I’m a cybernetic organism - pseudoflesh over metal endoskeleton. My name is T2000 and I am here to prove the Goldbach conjecture.
> 
> > 
> 
> > BN: The heart of PCT methodology is the building of generative models.
> 
> > 
> 
> > “In probability and statistics, a generative model is a model for randomly generating observable-data values, typically given some hidden parameters. It specifies a joint probability distribution over observation and label sequences.”
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: I don’t see the relation. What do you mean generative models?
> 
> > 
> 
> > BN: You are advocating more sophisticated mathematical tools than are typical in PCT research.
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: Something like that. I see others building robots that are more sophisticated than the ones I see in PCT. I’m wondering why.
> 
> > 
> 
> > BN: Are there aspects of the behavior of living things that can only be analyzed and modeled with a more sophisticated methodology?
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: Well, I don’t know. I would like to see a PCT program demonstrate walking behavior. I’ve seen robots walk on multiple limbs, why doesn’t PCT have these kinds of gimmicks.
> 
> > 
> 
> > BN: what is the motivation for advocating greater complexity?
> 
> > 
> 
> > PY: I want to see walking behavior!
> 
> Richard S. Marken
> 
> [www.mindreadings.com](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mindreadings.com&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=0EmCp_mFPSfTBkGpEvasr-wrfcHuxjWLsercgT-TroY&s=uwqoPrUoIfprBrcHwmBYjiPrmrIeHvUf-CLImcrKGM4&e=)  
> Author of [Doing Research on Purpose](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Doing-2DResearch-2DPurpose-2DExperimental-2DPsychology_dp_0944337554_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1407342866-26sr-3D8-2D1-26keywords-3Ddoing-2Bresearch-2Bon-2Bpurpose&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=0EmCp_mFPSfTBkGpEvasr-wrfcHuxjWLsercgT-TroY&s=NcVPN24raTjjpXqd1IMu8x04QMX2n26FrmAKkERSFWo&e=).  
> Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[Previous page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/declaration-of-independence/3373.md?page=1)