[From Rick Marken (981028.0715)]
Isn't it interesting how h(o) goes to zero as g(d) goes to zero 
[See LCS, p. 84]
Best
d
--
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 (981028.1635)]
Rick Marken (981028.0715)
Isn't it interesting how h(o) goes to zero as g(d) goes to zero
[See LCS, p. 84]
Since those who understand PCT knew this all along, why did take them so
long to take advantage of their knowledge? Is understanding PCT not enough
to make a difference?
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (981028.1450)]
Me
> Isn't it interesting how h(o) goes to zero as g(d) goes to zero
> [See LCS, p. 84]
Bruce Gregory (981028.1635) --
>Since those who understand PCT knew this all along, why did take them so
>long to take advantage of their knowledge?
I don't understand. Are you assuming that all "those who understand PCT"want
h(o) = 0?
Did you understand what my comment was about? (It had to do with what
h(o) going to zero when g(d) goes to zero implies about the variables being
controlled on CSGnet).
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 Rick Marken (981028.1520)]
Bruce Abbott (981028.1740 EST)--
Three questions, then:
1. Where did all your disturbances go, until today?
They didn't go anywhere. In fact, "they" are only disturbances when they
influence a variable that is under control.
2. What disturbance occurred today which resulted in your post?
None. It was a change in reference level.
3. Are you an S-R theorist? No stimulus (disturbance) no response
(action)!
No.
Puzzled but not terribly disturbed,
Did that help?
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 Abbott (981028.1740 EST)]
Rick Marken (981028.0715) --
Isn't it interesting how h(o) goes to zero as g(d) goes to zero
[See LCS, p. 84]
Three questions, then:
1. Where did all your disturbances go, until today?
2. What disturbance occurred today which resulted in your post?
3. Are you an S-R theorist? No stimulus (disturbance) no response
(action)!
Puzzled but not terribly disturbed,
Bruce
[From Bruce Abbott (981028.1745)]
Rick Marken (981028.1520) --
Bruce Abbott (981028.1740 EST)
Three questions, then:
1. Where did all your disturbances go, until today?
They didn't go anywhere. In fact, "they" are only disturbances when they
influence a variable that is under control.
Then what variable(s) did you give up controlling?
2. What disturbance occurred today which resulted in your post?
None. It was a change in reference level.
How do you know? You can't perceive your reference levels.
3. Are you an S-R theorist? No stimulus (disturbance) no response
(action)!
No.
No? I dunno. You sure _sound_ like one. You expect no response if there is
no disturbance (stimulus); that sounds straight out of the S-R book to me.
Yet I'll bet that at least one or two CSGnet readers are capable of
initiating posts without a prior stimulus/disturbance in the form of a
CSGnet posts. Those folks are, of course, all Skinnerians. ;->
Puzzled but not terribly disturbed,
Did that help?
Not much -- your answers left me with that dissatisfied feeling, as if I had
been expecting dinner and only got horsd'oeuvres.
Still hungry but spontaneously emitting behavior,
Bruce
[From Bruce Gregory (981028.2035 EDT)]
Bruce Abbott (981028.1745)]
>Rick Marken (981028.1520) --
It was a change in reference level.
How do you know? You can't perceive your reference levels.
Silly, he tested for the controlled variable.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (981028.2015)]
Bruce Gregory (981028.2035 EDT) --
Silly, he tested for the controlled variable.
Yes. Your controlled variables are hanging out there like
high fastballs. Look at your response and Bruce A's:
Bruce Abbott (981028.1745) --
You [Rick] sure _sound_ like one [an S-R theorist].
Yet I'll bet that at least one or two CSGnet readers are capable
of initiating posts without a prior stimulus/disturbance in the
form of a CSGnet posts. Those folks are, of course, all
Skinnerians. ;->
Bruce Abbott (981028.1955 EST) --
Emergent capabilities such as these were also noted by Rodney
Brooks at MIT in his "subsumption architecture" electromechanical
bugs.
You guys are controlling for PCT being _nothing but_ what you
already think it is: constructivism, Skinnerism, Brooksism,
whatever. The only time you say anything on the net (h(o)) is
when Bill or I say something (g(d)) that disturbs this perception.
Instead of working to develop PCT (in which case your h(o) would
_not_ so persistently equal the negative of Bill and my posts
since these posts would no longer constitute a reliable disturbance
to a variable you are controlling) your contributions are mainly
defensive (you are defending the perception I mentioned above;
ergo g(d) = - h (o)). When Bill and I don't post (g(d) = 0)
there is nothing for you to defend against -- so you stop
posting (h(o) = 0).
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 (981029.0605 EDT)]
Rick Marken (981028.2015)
Bruce Gregory (981028.2035 EDT) --
> Silly, he tested for the controlled variable.
Yes. Your controlled variables are hanging out there like
high fastballs. Look at your response and Bruce A's:
You misunderstand me. It is _your_ controlled variables you must test for,
since you have no way to _perceive_ that they have changed. Or do I, yet
again, fail to understand PCT?
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (981029.0830)]
Bruce Gregory (981029.0605 EDT)--
You misunderstand me. It is _your_ controlled variables you must
test for, since you have no way to _perceive_ that they have
changed. Or do I, yet again, fail to understand PCT?
You fail to understand my point, which is that the low activity on
the net over the last week while I was not posting suggests that
many people post (h(o)) mainly as a defense against my disturbances
(g(d)) to the variable(s) they are controlling.
And I can certainly perceive the variables I am controlling; how
else could I control them? I may not always be _aware_ of them;
but I am definitely perceiving them.
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 (981029.1300 EDT)]
Rick Marken (981029.0830)]
Bruce Gregory (981029.0605 EDT)--
> You misunderstand me. It is _your_ controlled variables you must
> test for, since you have no way to _perceive_ that they have
> changed. Or do I, yet again, fail to understand PCT?You fail to understand my point, which is that the low activity on
the net over the last week while I was not posting suggests that
many people post (h(o)) mainly as a defense against my disturbances
(g(d)) to the variable(s) they are controlling.And I can certainly perceive the variables I am controlling; how
else could I control them? I may not always be _aware_ of them;
but I am definitely perceiving them.
You are absolutely correct. What I intended to say, but did not, was that
you can only discover your own _reference levels_ by conducting the test,
since you cannot perceive them. Sorry.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (981029.1215)]
Bruce Gregory (981029.1300 EDT)--
What I intended to say, but did not, was that you can only
discover your own _reference levels_ by conducting the test,
since you cannot perceive them. Sorry.
I don't agree with this either. You can tell that a percpetion
is at its reference level if what you are perceiving isn't causing
you any grief (error). When I read the posts from Bill and Richard
Kennaway I feel no grief; my perception of their posts in terms of
"making a contribution to understanding purposive behavior" is
clearly at my reference level for that perception. When I read
posts from you and Bruce Abbott it's almost always like getting
a tooth filled without novacaine; my perception of your posts in
terms of "making a contribution to understanding purposive behavior"
is rarely at my reference level for that perception.
You can also tell what your own reference level for a perception is
by using your imagination; when you feel good imagining a particular
perception then that perception is probably at its reference level.
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 9981029.1725 EDT)]
Rick Marken (981029.1215)
I don't agree with this either. You can tell that a percpetion
is at its reference level if what you are perceiving isn't causing
you any grief (error). When I read the posts from Bill and Richard
Kennaway I feel no grief; my perception of their posts in terms of
"making a contribution to understanding purposive behavior" is
clearly at my reference level for that perception. When I read
posts from you and Bruce Abbott it's almost always like getting
a tooth filled without novacaine; my perception of your posts in
terms of "making a contribution to understanding purposive behavior"
is rarely at my reference level for that perception.You can also tell what your own reference level for a perception is
by using your imagination; when you feel good imagining a particular
perception then that perception is probably at its reference level.
Very interesting. I don't recall seeing a PCT model that incorporates a
connection between a perceptual control loop and an emotional system in the
brain. What experiments have led PCTers to conclude that such a connection
exists? Can you give me the references? Thanks.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (981029.1540)]
Bruce Gregory (981029.1725 EDT)--
I don't recall seeing a PCT model that incorporates a connection
between a perceptual control loop and an emotional system in the
brain.
Bill presents such a model in the chapter on Emotion in LCS II.
What experiments have led PCTers to conclude that such a connection
exists?
Subjective experiments. Just look around. I find that, for _me_,
some perceptions (like the perception of a Republican) are associated
with unpleasant emotions while others (like the perception of the
Mozart C major Piano Quartet) are associated with pleasant emotions
and still others (like the perception of Democrats) are associated
with neutral emotions.
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 (981030.0615 EDT)]
Rick Marken (981029.1540)
Subjective experiments. Just look around. I find that, for _me_,
some perceptions (like the perception of a Republican) are associated
with unpleasant emotions while others (like the perception of the
Mozart C major Piano Quartet) are associated with pleasant emotions
and still others (like the perception of Democrats) are associated
with neutral emotions.
To prevent someone from interpreting these examples in S-R terms, it would
be necessary to show that these emotions (or lack thereof) are associated
with efforts on your part to control. This. I presume, would require the
application of the test. Or are you suggesting some other way to determine
the controlled variable?
Bruce Gregory
