[From Rick Marken (941220.1745)]
Bruce Abbott (941220.1400 EST)]
The program appearing below provides an example of "selection BY
consequences" that even Rick Marken will like!
I like it, but I liked all your other examples of "selection BY consequences"
too. You seem to think that I don't believe in "selection BY consequences".
But I do. I think your Ecoli4 program used "selection BY consequences" to
change the probabilities of tumbling. I think sand filtering through a seive
is "selection BY consequences"; the large grains are "selected" to stay in
the seive by a consequence of their behavior; as they move down (courtesy of
gravity) they push against (rather than through) the wire mesh.
"Selection BY consequences" exists BUT IT DOES NOT PRODUCE CONTROL.
And, to the extent that consequences select the outputs (or the behavior)
of a system that is already organized as a control system (as was your
E. coli model) they INTERFERE with the system's ability to control.
Behaviorists claim that purposeful behavior (like that seen in operant
conditioning experiments) can be explained as "selection BY consequences".
The E. coli demos show that this is wrong; flat out, incntrovertably
wrong. PCT shows that purposeful behavior MUST be viewed as selection OF
consequences. Control theory shows how organisms must be organized in
order to be able to select and produce the selected consequences of
their actions.
Why is this so hard?
I agree that the evolutionary model you posted (assuming that it
works; I still have no Turbo for the PC) operates on the basis of
"selection BY consequences". I would imagine that there will be a
bunch of bugs with "good parameters" running around after a few
selection episodes. But is this a model of purposeful behavior?
The behavior of the bugs themselves is not selected by consequences.
What is selected by consequences? Is it the proportion of bugs
with "good" parameters? The average survival time of the bugs?
Many variables are "selected" by consequence (survival vs non-survival)
in your program. Are any of these variables controlled?
Are you saying that this new demo shows that control (purposeful behavior)
can result from selection by consequences? If so, what is the controlled
variable. How do you know that it is under control? If not, you went to
an awful lot of trouble to demonstrate the existance of a phneomenon
(selection BY consequences) that I already knew existed -- thanks to many
hours spent on the sunny beaches of LA siftin' sand.
ยทยทยท
------
Irrelevant comment:
I don't read Doonsbury regularly but my wife put a recent strip on the
refridge and it is absolutely wonderful. While explaining to J.J. some of
the virtues of "drifting to the right" Michael says:
"conservatism makes it possible to transform your deepest fears into
open convinctions".
I can think of no better way to describe the current public debate
on taxes, welfare, crime, and education. Private fear become political
vision. I love it! Graucho Marx may be gone but thank heavens we got
Newt (and Jesse, and Phil and Chico and Harpo and...)
Best
Rick