# Geese: Mush from outside, Science on inside. -1

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/geese-mush-from-outside-science-on-inside-1/4697>\
**Category:** CSG1995\
**Created:** [October 23, 1995, 3:57am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/geese-mush-from-outside-science-on-inside-1/4697 "1995-10-23T03:57:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dforssell](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@dforssell](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/dforssell)\
**Post date:** [October 23, 1995, 3:57am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/geese-mush-from-outside-science-on-inside-1/4697/1 "1995-10-23T03:57:47Z")

</div>

[From Dag Forssell (951022 2100)] Part 1 of 2

[Shannon Williams (951021)]

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What is the primary difference between the concept of alchemy

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;and chemistry? (Do chemists deal with different substances  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;than alchemists? Or do they mainly understand these substances  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;differently?)

Today, in my capacity as deputy archivist and PCT advocate, I shall  
come out of lurking briefly to welcome and support Shannon.  
Welcome! Considering your comment above, I must ask you if you have  
read the demodisk texts (available from the WWW server and from  
me), particularly my little essay on alchemy and discussion of  
alchemy in my book \_Management and Leadership: Insight for  
Effective Practice\_. I will be very pleased to feed your PCT-study  
habit.

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I am arguing that if you believe in an earth-centered

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;universe, you will not visualize Kepler's laws. And even when  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;the laws predict correctly, you will not be able to apply them  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;to your comprehension.

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If you believe that you can intuitively understand another

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;being's behavior just by observing it, you will not be able to  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;visualize PC. Your objective data could be useful to a PC  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;experimenter, but he could not build upon your theory or  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;analysis.

Shannon, this comment is pregnant with insight that is right on.  
While Bruce can articulate PCT it appears to me most unlikely that  
he visualizes it yet. While Bruce has constrained his claims to  
see value in conventional research by limiting what kind of  
research, under what conditions it was done and how detailed the  
observations were, he continues to debate eloquently.

I am reminded of discussion long ago about such value. Value cannot  
be denied, and we should concede this to Bruce, but the next  
question is how much. The analogy was mentioned on this net of a  
barrel full of peanut shells. There is undoubtedly some whole  
peanuts in there, but is it worthwhile to sift through all the  
shells to find them?

> **···**
>
> --------------------------------  
> [Bruce Abbott (951021.1600 EST)] in response to Shannon
> 
> [Emphasis in the form of CAPS added by Dag]
> 
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All of which may be true but is irrelevant to the position I
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;have been advancing. Whether or not ethologists, for example,  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;have viewed behavior in control-system terms, they have done  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;a magnificent job, in my opinion, of providing germane  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;observations AND YES, EVEN CONCLUSIONS (E.G., ABOUT THE  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;FUNCTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MANY BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS), that a  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;control-systems scientist would be better off knowing than  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ignoring when beginning a study of, for example, termite  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;control systems.
> 
> ...
> 
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Secondly, although the PC experimenter would not wish to
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"build upon the theory" of the ethologist (assuming the  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ethologist is, for example, relying on an S-R type of  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;interpretation), there is no necessary reason why a PC  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;experimenter could not build upon HIS ANALYSIS, IF HIS  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ANALYSIS WERE BASED ON THE RIGHT KIND OF INFORMATION. How  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;about the observation that the egg-retrieval motion of the  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;greylag goose continues, once begun, even if the egg is  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;removed during the process? ETHOLOGISTS HAVE CONCLUDED from  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;such observations that this motion, once begun, operates  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;independently of the tactile feedback from the egg. They have  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;also noted that the side-to-side motion of the bill during  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;this behavior, which normally occurs during the retrieval  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;motion and tends to keep the egg from rolling off the bill,  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;does depend on such feedback, because it is absent once the  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;egg has been removed. THESE SEEM TO BE SOUND INTERPRETATIONS  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;TO ME, and I'M SURE I COULD WRITE A VERY FINE COMPUTER MODEL  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;OF THIS EGG-RETRIEVAL SYSTEM THAT WOULD PERFORM EXACTLY AS THE  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;GOOSE DOES. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;position? (;-\>
> 
> Bruce, you see value in egg-rolling behavior research because you  
> have yet to see things from the PCT Neckar cube perspective as a  
> matter of course. Perhaps Bill mentioned egg-rolling because he  
> remembered discussing it before. I shall copy a thread from June of  
> 1991 below in its entirety. Perhaps if you read this carefully you  
> will see the futility of your argument -- of seeing value in  
> egg-rolling research -- if you read it carefully.
> 
> Bruce, You have abstained from commenting on my posts on \_Science  
> or Mush\_ and \_I've got PCT in my bones\_ last July even though you  
> promised to, but have made reference to them. I submit your  
> argument in the last paragraph above is an excellent example of  
> mush, looking for the magic of behavior instead of trying to model  
> the physics of it. A computer model, as I have noted before, which  
> invokes magic in the form of statistical probabilities, is not a  
> physical model. I am not disputing your ability to write a  
> computer model, just saying that it would still be mush.
> 
> Your argument that not only the observations themselves [which Bill  
> P. has agreed in principle can have value] but that the analysis  
> and conclusions drawn from traditional research also have value  
> would be funny if it was not so tragic. There is a critical  
> difference between observing behavior from the outside and creating  
> a physical model of what goes on on the inside.
> 
> Here is the thread. Any lurker can draw his/her own conclusions.
> 
> > From CSG archives:
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> Subject: Egg-Rolling
> 
> [from Gary Cziko] Thu, 13 Jun 91 14:21:14 -0500
> 
> Along the lines of the stumped rat, here is Lorenz's description of  
> the egg-rolling behavior of the greylag goose. What is so  
> interesting about this is that there does seem to be what appears  
> to be a combination of control of motor output (drawing the egg  
> back toward the nest) and control of perception (keeping the egg  
> balanced on the underside of the bill).
> 
> "The fixed motor pattern used in the action consists of a  
> stretching forward of the neck, bending the head downward so as to  
> touch the egg with the underside of the bill, and then rolling it  
> toward the nest by means of a slow bending of the neck.  
> Concomitant compensatory movements of head and bill to each side  
> keep the egg in balance and prevent its deviating from the intended  
> path. The fixed motor pattern can be isolated by deftly snatching  
> away the egg after the movement has been released. The movement  
> then continues to run smoothly all the way through to the nest cup,  
> staying strictly within the median, that is, along the bird's plan  
> of symmetry. Once the movement has been released, it can only run  
> its way through to the end and can be changed neither in its  
> coordination , nor in its strength. If one offers the goose an  
> object much too large, such as a huge cardboard easter egg, the  
> movement literally "jams"; the goose proves unable to move the  
> object in any other than the prescribed way--for instance by  
> walking backward. If the object is not heavy enough, it is lifted  
> off the ground; if it is too heavy by even only a slight amount,  
> the movement fails to budge it. This is remarkable because a  
> goose's neck is capable of producing a prodigious amount of power,  
> for instance, enough to pull a table cloth loaded with a complete  
> tea set off a table, or, in a more teleonomic way, to tear heavily  
> rooted plants out of the bottom of a pond. However, the power at  
> the disposal of the fixed motor pattern is strictly measured to  
> serve its single function.
> 
> "As can easily be demonstrated, the movements to each side, which  
> during the whole procedure keep the egg balanced on the underside  
> of the bill, are elicited by tactile stimuli emanating from the  
> object. Whenever the egg deviates to on side, the bill immediately  
> follows it and guides it back into the right direction. It is  
> possible to make the egg "run on rails' during the rolling process  
> by arranging a bundle of reeds obliquely across its path. Then the  
> movement tries to overtake the egg in order to correct the "wrong"  
> direction and sometimes succeeds at the moment when the pressure of  
> the bill acts at a right angle to the obstacle. If the goose  
> "rolls"a square object that facilitates the establishment of a  
> stable contact with both branches of the mandible and thus not  
> diverging from the straight line either to the right or to the  
> left, the balancing movements cease altogether and the fixed  
> pattern alone predominates, just as it does when the object being  
> rolled is removed altogether." [Lorenz, Konrad Z. (1981). \_The  
> foundations of ethology\_. New York: Simon & Schuster. (pp.  
> 236-237)]
> 
> So if Lorenz's description is accurate, disturbances are  
> compensated for side to side but not far to near. Can the far to  
> near movement be explained as anything but the unreeling of a fixed  
> behavior pattern which is not sensitive to feedback control?
> 
> I would really appreciate some help with this one since in my book  
> I'd like to critique Lorenz's idea of innate behaviors, but  
> examples like this are making that tough to do, particularly since  
> Lorenz does reveal instances of when perceptual control appear to  
> be involved, as in the side-to-side movements described here.
> 
> --Gary
> 
> Subject: Re: egg-rolling
> 
> > From Tom Bourbon -- Thu, 13 Jun 91 17:20:55 CDT
> 
> Gary Cziko [910613n], in the case of the egg-rolling critters,  
> instead of control of output, what about control of perceptions  
> around a fixed reference to "feel it coming straight back, but not  
> any harder than this." That would account for the corrections of  
> lateral deviations and would explain the relatively feeble efforts,  
> compared to the forces we know the animal can generate.
> 
> Tom Bourbon
> 
> Subject: Open Loop Goose
> 
> [From Rick Marken] Thu, 13 Jun 91 18:06:23 -0700
> 
> Gary Cziko (910613)
> 
> I like the Lorenz description of the egg-rolling goose but I don't  
> think I understand exactly what is going on. I get an image of a  
> goose backing toward a nest balancing an egg under its bill. The  
> duck compensates for the odd movements of the egg -- keeping it  
> rolling in a straight path. So the duck seems to be controlling for  
> the perception of the force exerted by the egg against its bill. If  
> the egg is removed after it starts rolling it to the nest it just  
> continues until it gets to the nest? Is that right? And if the egg  
> is too big it has trouble moving it at all and it just stays in one  
> place? What does Lorenz (that quaint little Nazi asshole) think is  
> the "fixed motor pattern"? I doubt that the muscles that move the  
> duck to the nest are flexing in the same way on each egg rolling  
> occasion. Is it the path taken (straight to the nest)? if so, there  
> were no disturbances applied to test this.
> 
> I do think this is a very interesting example and. I am sure, if  
> you could get a hold of one of these geese you could quickly show  
> which perceptual variables it was controlling. It is interesting  
> because a behavior pattern does seem to be running off open loop.  
> But I'm sure you would not be getting whatever consistency is  
> seeing if, indeed, it was running open loop. I've never seen a  
> goose or duck that bumped around the environment like one of those  
> toy robots, which does move open loop.
> 
> I tentatively go with Tom Bourbon's description of the controlled  
> perceptual variables in egg rolling ( I especially like the "not  
> too hard" reference to explain the goose's reluctance to push too  
> hard -- a good reference to have when you are pushing eggs around  
> with your nose). But I still would like to get a better concept of  
> what the bird is doing and what Lorenz thinks the bird is doing.
> 
> Thanks Rick
> 
> Subject: geese
> 
> [From Bill Powers (910613.1930)]
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> Gary Cziko (910613) --
> 
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Lorenz's description of the egg-rolling behavior of the
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;greylag goose.
> 
> Remember that ALL behavior is a process of controlling perceptions.  
> Even bending the goose's neck. The question shouldn't be "are some  
> behaviors designed for controlling perceptions and are some simply  
> innate?" but "Are some control systems learned and are some  
> innate?" The goose may have to learn how to keep the egg rolling in  
> a straight line, because the shape of the egg and the terrain can't  
> be predicted. But given that the lateral control system is designed  
> to work in a variable environment, there's evidently no need to  
> control the egg for distance: if the right force is applied to the  
> egg in the right direction, that is normally sufficient (often  
> enough) to bring the egg closer. So the inherited reference signal  
> "bring the egg closer" can be achieved by an inherited control  
> system using a pattern of variation of reference signals for  
> lower-order neck-bending systems. From Lorenz' description, I would  
> guess that the main control system senses the force applied by the  
> beak, moving the neck until sensed force equals reference force,  
> with velocity feedback limiting the speed. When the object is  
> heavy, the required force is reached before the object moves. When  
> it is light, the object has to be accelerated to make the force  
> reach the required level -- this lifts it into the air and probably  
> throws it. It's clearly not a beak-position control system in the  
> radial direction. There could be some evolutionary advantages in  
> this seemingly stupid behavior. It would keep objects both heavier  
> and lighter than normal eggs from being pulled into the nest.
> 
> Note that if you remove the egg, the motion will persist (with  
> negative velocity feedback) until a limit is reached, because the  
> sensed force never does reach the reference level.
> 
> The force vector is evidently always aimed at the nest, so the  
> directional aspect of the control system is clearly working (else  
> what does "toward the nest" mean?).
> 
> If you don't accept ANY description of behavior as a description of  
> emitted output, you can usually find a reasonable control system  
> that will entail producing the observed actions. Of course that's  
> just the start. You have to apply the Test to see if I have guessed  
> right, or more likely, whether a more complex set of controlled  
> variables is involved. Now that I've provided a testable hypothesis  
> about the goose, you, of course, are now required to do the  
> experiment. Unless you think that answering this question is not  
> worth the effort.
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> Sorry to go on so long, but you guys pulled a whole lot of  
> triggers. It's not MY fault.
> 
> Subject: Re: Egg-Rolling
> 
> Jay Mittenthal Fri, 14 Jun 91 16:38:05 -0500
> 
> sorry, Gary, no good ideas. what especially surprised me about the  
> goose example is that its neck doesn't deliver enough power to roll  
> egg-shaped objects slightly heavier than eggs. Perhaps naively,  
> that isn't what I would have expected of a control system.
> 
> best, Jay
> 
> Subject: Cooked Goose
> 
> [From Rick Marken (910614.1500)]
> 
> Gary (910614)
> 
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But I still have a problem figuring out what THE TEST would
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;look like to see what was being controlled by the goose's far  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;to near movement of the head/neck.
> 
> What are the "near to far movements? What variable does Lorenz  
> think is not controlled? What variables (results of the gooses  
> muscle contractions) do you think MIGHT be controlled? I'm asking  
> because I was telling the truth -- I really don't understand parts  
> of the Lorentz description. It would really help if you would give  
> me your own description of what is going on and what the "open  
> loop" motor program might be. Once you have a reasonable idea about  
> what variable MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be controlled then you can think  
> of a test more easily, I think.
> 
> Thanks Richard S. Marken
> 
> Subject: 1 Re: cooked goose; 2 "Big deal"
> 
> > From Tom Bourbon --Sat, 15 Jun 91 01:44:46 CDT
> 
> Gary Cziko [910615]:
> 
> you asked again whether the front-back movements of the goose's  
> neck might not be open loop. Like Rick, I don't quite get the point  
> of what Lorenz said. It has been many years since I read that work.  
> Could you refresh us on it?
> 
> "Big deal!" That was the remark from one of my faculty colleagues  
> when one of my thesis students presented his research proposal to  
> our faculty today -- at least he presented it to the portion of the  
> faculty that will even attend a proposal on PCT. The remark came  
> after the faculty member, a cognitive scientist, had asked the  
> student, Wade Harman, if he was telling us that the model "merely  
> predicted a person would do what she did the first time?"
> 
> Wade's task, which he programmed himself, is a "4-D" tracking task.  
> The target is an arrow head, like the emblems on Star Trek  
> uniforms. It moves around the screen, driven by random waveforms  
> that move it in X, Y, Z (size, or apparent distance), and A (or  
> angle relative to the vertical). The participant uses a mouse to  
> control the cursor in X and Y, and a joystick to control A and Z.  
> People learn the task relatively quickly and perform it reliably,  
> which prompted some of my colleagues to inform Wade that it must be  
> easy, therefore predicting that people would continue to perform  
> well was trivial. (No, they did not get the point!)
> 
> Wade models the participant as four independent control loops,  
> deriving a reference signal (mean cursor-target distance) for each  
> dimension of movement and deriving an integration factor for each  
> loop by the tried-and-true procedure. Correlations between the four  
> models and the person's movement of the cursor in each dimension  
> run from .99+ down to some low .89s, for a few people who have some  
> "problems" doing the task.
> 
> During the proposal, Wade was demonstrating the next step in the  
> run, which was purely for demonstration purposes: The four models  
> were moving the cursor to track the target, which was driven by a  
> new set of random numbers for the second run -- he was showing the  
> performance the models predicted for the up-coming run. I was  
> watching in amazement, even though I have seen it run many times,  
> when my cognitive colleague remarked, "This is all just circular  
> reasoning -- you are predicting this with parameters you derived  
> from what she did a while ago." Of course, he was right, but why do  
> I still believe he missed the point?
> 
> Wade gets to go ahead with his project, but only because the  
> faculty knows better than to say no for no good reason.
> 
> Rick, several years ago, you had a "coming out," in which you told  
> your faculty colleagues you would not go on playing the role of  
> psychologist, teaching people things you did not believe. I was  
> sorely tempted to do the same, but chose instead to stay at it.  
> Now, with a growing body of literature on PCT, on feedback  
> processes and on experimental design and statistics from the PCT  
> perspective, it is easier to teach the material. But that is a  
> mixed blessing: the kids in my classes (most of them ARE kids,  
> compared to me!) make up their own minds about what they hear, read  
> and do in my classes, compared to what they get elsewhere, and  
> increasing numbers of them are interested in, or downright excited  
> about, PCT and its implications.
> 
> But these people are getting B.A.s, or at most M.A.s, and there is  
> no place for them in the world. Several of my colleagues are  
> somewhat tolerant of me and of students who turn on to PCT, but  
> some of the others are not so open or supportive. The person who  
> asked seniors in a statistics course to present a talk on some  
> controversial topic concerning uses of statistics in psychology was  
> not prepared to have one student give a reasoned discussion of the  
> "coefficient of failure," discussed on CSG-L a while back. Nor was  
> he ready for another student who, by all accounts, gave an elegant  
> review of Phil Runkel's critique of abuses of the method of  
> relative frequencies.
> 
> Students are told by some people that they don't care what kind of  
> evidence he (me) might present, PCT isn't right and it isn't  
> psychology (I believe that!). During a discussion with several  
> students who invoked PCT as part of a challenge to his pet  
> theories, another faculty member blurted out, "What does he (me) do  
> to you people, brainwash you?"
> 
> Hugh Petrie is talking of attending CSG in Durango. If he does, he  
> wants people who teach about PCT to share ideas and experiences.  
> Bill Williams (an economist who is not on CSG-L) wants to talk  
> about sample curricula for teaching people about PCT. This is all  
> well and good -- I share their interests, but for several of us,  
> the issue of what happens to the students we expose to PCT looms  
> larger with every new development in the model and in its  
> applications.
> 
> Something for several of us to discuss at Durango. This has turned  
> into free association, and on the net, no less. I guess I was  
> wishing some of you could have been there this afternoon, when Wade  
> deserved a better audience.
> 
> Best wishes, Tom Bourbon
> 
> Continued in part 2