[From Bill Powers (2000.09..19.0330 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory (2000.0918.1640)--
At the end of
this process is a final model, the one that correctly represents the
organization and predicts its behavior under any specific
circumstances to
the limits of measurement.
That's what I'm disputing. I'll change my mind when such a model exists.
My point is that if we follow a process of testing and refining models, at
the end of the process there will be a model with perfect descriptive and
predictive power. I'm not saying we have such a model yet (how long has
anyone consciously been trying to follow this procedure?). Do you dispute
that pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, has a
specific exact value, despite the fact that nobody has yet computed all the
digits in its expression? To describe a process that produces a convergent
infinite series can be done without demonstrating the entire series.
(Of course all we can know is that up to now the model has never let us
down. That was true of Newton's model for at least two hundred years. So
how long should we wait before declaring the model is "final"?)
There's no need ever to declare it final. The point is that we can tell
when a model is getting better and when it's getting worse, and roughly by
how much.
By "correctly" I mean simply that
the structure
and behavior of the final model is exactly isomorphic to the
structure and
behavior of the real system.
So far we haven't developed any such models. Clearly you are more
optimistic than I am.
Optimism has nothing to do with it. Basically, all I'm saying is that
reality has exactly one shape, not a shape that changes with every
theoretical fad.
And if two models have contradictory properties, then at
least one of them must be wrong, since the real system can have no
self-contradictory properties.
Such as being both a particle and a wave?
Yes, to the extent that we consider these properties "contradictory." Both
models are probably wrong.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0919.0957)]
Bruce Abbott (2000.09.18.2210 EST)
(Now how's that for a reductio ad absurdum?)
I recognize a master when I meet one.
BG
[From Bruce Abbott (2000.09.19.1145 EST)]
Rick Marken (2000.09.19.0850) --
Bruce Abbott (2000.09.16.2235 EST)
I hope you will share those reviewers' and editor's comments
with us -- I'd like to know what they had to say.
Ok. I found the reviews at work yesterday, brought them home and
then managed to leave them at home today.
. . .
I'll try to report more details this evening, if you're interested.
Yes, please do.
Bruce A.
[From Rick Marken (2000.09.19.0850)]
Bruce Abbott (2000.09.16.2235 EST)--
I hope you will share those reviewers' and editor's comments
with us -- I'd like to know what they had to say.
Ok. I found the reviews at work yesterday, brought them home and
then managed to leave them at home today. The paper was submitted
to JEP in 1987! Domjan was, indeed, the action Editor. There were
three reviews. The reviewers' comments were not very interesting,
as I recall. Just general things like "there already are feedback
models of reinforcement" and "the authors haven't made their case".
One of the reviews was basically friendly; it didn't recommend
rejection, anyway. We were going to resubmit but were not encouraged
to do so by Domjan. I think Domjan was fair; he certainly didn't
reject the paper "summarily". And even if it were accepted (as
the rewritten version eventually was in _Behavioral Neuroscience_)
it would probably have made no more of an impression appearing in
JEP than it did appearing in BN. But the BN version was a pretty
good paper (it's the Chemotaxis_ paper in MR); an improvement, I
think, over the version submitted to JEP.
I'll try to report more details this evening, if you're interested.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.0919.1259)]
Bruce Abbott (2000.09.16.2225 EST)
Classical conditioning is being modeled as akin to Wiener's
proposal in
_Cybernetics_ in which the input-output relations are modified by a
"compensator" in the light of the system's performance
according to some
optimization criterion. It's not PCT, but it is an
application of control
theory nevertheless.
This is very helpful. It seems to me to be a good description of what
many people call control theory. In this version, the control mechanism
does none of the "heavy lifting" but rather serves only to tune output.
I never understood why it was so important to tune output so I missed
what was happening. Thanks for the clarification.
BG