Gestalt

CSGnet Archive CSG1994
1

[Paul George 940715 10:30]

From Tom Bourbon [940714.1750]

Me:

Perhaps you should give me your definition of 'gestalt'.

Ah, it ws _you_ who introduced the term into the discussion. I've called
_your_ hand. Show your cards! :slight_smile:

I've been trying. And from your discussion I think we are saying much the same
thing. One more time.

To perceive something which exists in the environment, one needs a set of
inputs. The blind men couldn't correctly perceive the elephant because they
didn't touch enough of it and couldn't see the whole. Similarly, I can't clap
with only one hand. It isn't the number of components (def differs between
examples) that matters, it's just that if you don't have the complete set,
nothing happens. At some point you have enough knowlege, or control loops, or
perception, or instrumentality to affect the envrionment in a way that allows
you to control your perceptions effectively (hope that was bad enough wording
:-). Adding more may increase your level (effectiveness) of control, or may
not. But less means you can't control at all. At some point there is a critical
mass.

A Baby can't act very successfully because it hasn't learned enough about what
the sensory stimuli 'means'. I can't form complete sentences until I know
enough words and grammar. Children don't comprehend conservation of area or
volume until a certain age (exactly why is not apparently known). We may
presume their HPC network is not sufficiently complex. In general there is some
correlation between the number of neurons & connections and 'levels of
intellegence' (speaking of fuzzy terms). I don't think it is a smooth curve
(perhaps Rick can tell us).

Hope these examples clarify what I am talking about.

Paul

2

From Tom Bourbon [940715.1722]

I'm way behind with my replies, but here goes a start at trying to catch up.

[Paul George 940715 10:30]

From Tom Bourbon [940714.1750]

Paul:

Perhaps you should give me your definition of 'gestalt'.

Tom:

Ah, it was _you_ who introduced the term into the discussion. I've called
_your_ hand. Show your cards! :slight_smile:

Paul:

I've been trying. And from your discussion I think we are saying much the same
thing. One more time.

To perceive something which exists in the environment, one needs a set of
inputs. The blind men couldn't correctly perceive the elephant because they
didn't touch enough of it and couldn't see the whole. Similarly, I can't clap
with only one hand. It isn't the number of components (def differs between
examples) that matters, it's just that if you don't have the complete set,
nothing happens. At some point you have enough knowlege, or control loops, or
perception, or instrumentality to affect the envrionment in a way that allows
you to control your perceptions effectively (hope that was bad enough wording
:-). Adding more may increase your level (effectiveness) of control, or may
not. But less means you can't control at all. At some point there is a critical
mass.

I Believe I'm beginning to see why you thought you were telling me what you
mean by a "gestalt" and I didn't realize that was the case. I think of
"gestalt" in terms of the historic Gestalt "school" in psychology. Its
adherents urged that perceptual experience is _always_ "whole" and
perception is different from elementary sensations -- an idea that in some
inexplicable way became the textbook chestnut, "the whole is greater than
the sum of the parts."

They also made a big thing of the idea that perception and neurological
events are "isomorphic" and that both neural events and perception are
entirely "contemporaneous:" they are simultaneous and in the immediate
present -- nothing from the past or future can enter into present
neurological and perceptual events. (I guess that would rule out
"feedforward," wouldn''t it? :wink:

In light of that tradition, the story of the blind men and the elephant is
not a story about a failure of three people to have their individual
"gestalts." On the traditional Gestalt reading, each of the blind men had
the only perceptions he could have: those that were isomorphic with the
organization and functional state of his nervous system, _whatever_ those
might happen to be. Each blind man had "whole" perceptions -- "gestalts,"
if you like -- not incomplete ones. Only a differently organized person (say
one who was not blind) could have whole perceptions that were different
from those of each of the blind men. And who is to say the sighted person
sees all there "really is?" Different organizations, different activity,
different perceptions -- and all of them "whole."

A Baby can't act very successfully because it hasn't learned enough about what
the sensory stimuli 'means'.

And the organization isn't there to support "mature" actions; but babies
function as whole systems, with whole perceptions and actions. (I
like this more accurate reading of Gestalt theory -- it flies in the face of
more familiar and popular ideas that infants are "incomplete" adults and
that they must "develop" into adult "finished products.")

I can't form complete sentences until I know
enough words and grammar.

But you do whole things other than form complete sentences . . . And so on.

. . . In general there is some
correlation between the number of neurons & connections and 'levels of
intellegence' (speaking of fuzzy terms).

Perhaps, in a very loose sense. That puts whales far ahead of us, I guess,
and . . . Hmm. Maybe I won't even stand on my "perhaps." Whatever
the case, the Gestaltists would have come back with the idea that no
species is a partial realization of any other species; each is complete and
its experiences and actions are "whole" for its particular organization.

Hope these examples clarify what I am talking about.

I think they did. I hope my reply clarifies why your use of "gestalt" didn't
look familiar to me. :wink:

Later,

Tom

3

[From Fred Nickols (2004.11.29.0926 EST)] --

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.29.1107)

Not quite accurate. Your on target about the computers, but you seem to
forget the work of James, Gestalt, and _many_ other who scoffed at
behaviorism.

I'm guessing that James above refers to William James, but to whom does
Gestalt refer? Would that be Heinrich or his brother Karl?

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net

4

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.30.0840)]

Fred Nickols (2004.11.29.0926 EST)] --

Marc Abrams (2004.11.29.1107)--

Not quite accurate. Your on target about the computers, but you seem to
forget the work of James, Gestalt, and _many_ other who scoffed at
behaviorism.

I'm guessing that James above refers to William James, but to whom does
Gestalt refer? Would that be Heinrich or his brother Karl?

James is probably William James, though William was in no position to scoff
at Behaviorism since he died about a year or so before Watson published his
famous Psych Review paper "Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It" that
officially kicked off Behaviorism. The Gestalt psychologists that I remember
were Koffka (not the writer Franz), Koehler and Wertheimer, who were working
in Germany in the 1920s and 30s. And they did, indeed, scoff at Behaviorism.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

5

From [Marc Abrams (2004.12.01.0233)]

In a message dated 11/30/2004 11:50:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.30.0840)]

Fred Nickols (2004.11.29.0926 EST)] –

I’m guessing that James above refers to William James,
Yes

but to whom does

Gestalt refer? Would that be Heinrich or his brother Karl?
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Ernst Mach, and particularly of Christian von Ehrenfels and the research work of Max Wertheimer, Wolfgang Köhler, Kurt Koffka, and Kurt Lewin

James is probably William James, though William was in no position to scoff
at Behaviorism since he died about a year or so before Watson published his
famous Psych Review paper “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It” that
officially kicked off Behaviorism.
Yes, but his students, like Walter Cannon, who in 1939 came up with the notion of homeostasis and there were many others who did not prescribe to behaviorism. Cog Sci did not appear instantaneously in the 1950s.

The Gestalt psychologists that I remember
were Koffka (not the writer Franz), Koehler and Wertheimer, who were working
in Germany in the 1920s and 30s. And they did, indeed, scoff at Behaviorism.
What about Paget as well. The point I was attempting to make was that although behaviorism became a very popular methodology in trying to study psychology. The emphasis in Psychology was ALWAYS on the mind.

Marc

6

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.02.0900)]

Marc Abrams (2004.12.01.0233)

Rick Marken (2004.11.30.0840)]

The Gestalt psychologists that I remember
were Koffka (not the writer Franz), Koehler and Wertheimer, who were working
in Germany in the 1920s and 30s. And they did, indeed, scoff at Behaviorism.

What about Paget as well.

That's Piaget. He was vertainly not a behaviorist and I'm sure he was
influenced by the Gestalt school but I don't think he considered himself a
Gestalt psychologist.

The point I was attempting to make was that although
behaviorism became a very popular methodology in trying to study psychology.
The emphasis in Psychology was _ALWAYS_ on the mind.

Behaviorists were not interested in the mind at all. They believed that
stimuli caused or selected responses and that mind was irrelevant. Indeed,
behaviorists scoffed at the cognitive theories of their contemporary, Edwin
Tolman (after whom the psychology building at Berkeley I named), whose
"purposive behaviorism" tried to being mental concepts into the
understanding of obviously goal oriented (purposeful) behavior such as
running to get food in the goal box of a maze.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

7

From [Marc Abrams (2004.12.02.1423)]

In a message dated 12/2/2004 12:01:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.02.0900)]

That’s Piaget. He was vertainly not a behaviorist and I’m sure he was
influenced by the Gestalt school but I don’t think he considered himself a
Gestalt psychologist.
Thanks for the correction (did you mean _C_ertainly or V ertainly) but my point was not that Piaget was a Gestalt psychologist. It was that alternatives to behaviorism existed, and in fact flourished. Behaviorism might have been popular and even the dominant view of the day but it certainly was not the only theory where many people and many dollars were used in research.

Behaviorists were not interested in the mind at all.
Sorry Rick, they were. They just felt that the ‘mind’ could not be studied scientifically through the means that were attempted in the past. They wanted to move the research away from introspection (A Powers favorite by the way, and a very viable one in my opinion) and into the world of the lab and experimentation. The focus was always on the mind. What changed was the methods they used to study it.

They simply felt that they could tell what you were thinking by what you were doing.

Sound familiar?

Bill Powers and all the rest of us know differently though. Isn’t that what ‘intent’ is Rick? How do you know what someone’s ‘intent’ is without understanding what they are controlling for? Isn’t that the basis for PCT? If ‘intent’ is NOT the mind, please for the clarity of CSGnet and all those masses of fans of yours, what the hell is it?

PCT is the study of human purpose. You think ‘control.’ I think cognition. In my view there very well may be other factors involved in the study of ‘intent’ and then again there may not.

So Rick, I’m not only interested in the fact that people do in fact control. I would like to know why and how. Pct provides the FOUNDATION for ultimately getting the answers to those questions. We are just not there yet.

This is not a crime nor is it a reflection of the work that has been done here already. What it says though is that we might be a roadblock for some reason. No one has been able to advance the theory in 35 years. Is that a problem? Not necessarily. But if you don’t look at alternatives you’ll never know. The first way of doing that is by being able to discuss what has NOT gone right. In the experiments that have been done and have not been successful, we need to understand why just as badly as we need to understand what is right about the tracking task.

I count 3 ‘failed’ collaborations that we all know little about because Bill dismisses them out of hand. Work with Martin Taylor, Bruce Abbott, and most recently John Flach.

I am NOT interested in the personality or philosophical differences here. What I am interested in seeing is what varied from expectation and why. That is, what was anticipated by al and what actually happened. I want to see the data, the facts. Not someone’s interpretation of them.

Behavior is a function of cognition. Intent if you will. Cognition may or may not be more than just a function of control. Exactly what do you disagree with in this statement?

One day someone will have the answers. I plan on trying to help us get there. How about you?

Marc

8

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.02.1410)]

Marc Abrams (2004.12.02.1423)]

If 'intent' is _NOT_ the mind, please for the clarity of CSGnet and all those
masses of fans of yours, what the hell is it?

You're preaching to the choir here. I'm not the one who said intent is _not_
a mental construct. Remember, I'm the person who calls my site (and books)
_MindReadings_ because I consider the detection of intention (using The
Test) to be a kind of mind reading process.

So Rick, I'm not only interested in the fact that people do in fact control. I
would like to know why and how. Pct provides the _FOUNDATION_ for ultimately
getting the answers to those questions. We are just not there yet.

I agree that we are not nearly there yet. But PCT does provide a very
promising model that explains how and why people control. I think the best
way to get "there" -- ie. get to where we have answers to the question of
how and why people control -- is to test the model's ability to account for
human controlling. This has been my approach to understanding how and why
people control.

No one has been able to advance the theory in 35 years.

Several people have advanced PCT considerably over the last 35 years, not
the least being Bill Powers himself. Some of the major advances (and I
apologize to anyone I've left out) include Powers' simulations like the
Little Man, Crowd and inverted pendulum, Dick Robertson's reorganization
study, Richard Kennaway's multidimensional control models and my own
research and models described in my two books.

In the experiments that have been done and have _not_ been successful, we need
to understand why just as badly as we need to understand what is _right_ about
the tracking task.

You bet. What experiments are you thinking of?

I count 3 'failed' collaborations that we all know little about because Bill
dismisses them out of hand. Work with Martin Taylor, Bruce Abbott, and most
recently John Flach.

I think it would be _great_ to discuss these failures. I know that two did
seem to involve failed experiments (Taylor and Abbott) and I think it would
be useful to make clear what failed and what could be done to improve the
experiments.

The Flach collaboration did not involve a failed experiment. It involved a
failure to agree that a basic finding in the tracking literature (apparent
adaptation in terms of change in the human transfer function when there is a
change in the order of the control device) could be accounted for by the
behavior of a two level control system that does not adapt. But a discussion
of what happened in that hopeful collaboration would be worthwhile as well.

What I am interested in seeing is what varied from expectation and why.

I think that's a very good idea. Perhaps we could start by having Martin
Taylor and Bruce Abbott describe what they did and why they think things
went wrong.

I want to see the data, the facts. Not someone's interpretation of them.

Me too. That's a great idea!

Behavior is a function of cognition. Intent if you will. Cognition may or may
not be more than just a function of control. Exactly what do you disagree with
in this statement?

It's hard to say because there are many different ways to understand words
like these. What do you mean by "behavior", "cognition", "intent" and even
"function"? I have my own ways of understanding these words that may lead me
to disagree when, in fact, there is no disagreement. That's why models are
so nice. It makes things a bit more concrete -- for me anyway.

Using my understanding of the words, I guess I would say that some behavior,
but certainly not all, is cognitive. The idea of behavior being a function
of cognition makes no sense to me because behavior, to me, is control. So
cognitive behavior is simply control of variables that I would call
"cognitive". The process of controlling these cognitive variables is what I
would call cognition. So controlling the state of a crossword puzzle or
chess game is what I would call cognition. In these cases, behavior is not a
function of cognition; it _is_ cognition.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

9

From [Marc Abrams (2004.12.02.1814)]

HALLELUJAH

You really don’t know how much you, Bill and the others I have responded to on CSGnet over the past few weeks have helped me clarify my thinking. Not in any way anyone here can possibly imagine, but help nonetheless and for that I am grateful to all.

In a message dated 12/2/2004 5:17:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.02.1410)]

You’re preaching to the choir here. I’m not the one who said intent is not
a mental construct. Remember, I’m the person who calls my site (and books)
MindReadings because I consider the detection of intention (using The
Test) to be a kind of mind reading process.
Yes Rick, I know. My intent was to try and show you that there are any number of different ways one might view How an HPCT type of model might actually be thought of and function. I have no firm answers with regard to this but I do know that looking at a few could not hurt. This was never intended as any disrespect toward you, Bill or anyone else.

I agree that we are not nearly there yet. But PCT does provide a very
promising model that explains how and why people control. I think the best
way to get “there” – i.e. get to where we have answers to the question of
how and why people control – is to test the model’s ability to account for
human controlling. This has been my approach to understanding how and why
people control.
WHERE do you see me arguing against this? Rick, I hit a roadblock in trying to think about these issues (intent) using the HPCT hierarchy. I initially LOVED the concept and Bill knows this. I thought originally that Bill might have solved the age old sensory binding problem of perceptions. But this was not to be. Not a big deal.

I stopped ‘loving’ it when I could not reconcile the hierarchy with what I envisioned to be the ‘components’ of intent and how they interacted. I don’t think this is a crime.

Several people have advanced PCT considerably over the last 35 years, not
the least being Bill Powers himself.
No Rick. There has been no ‘advancement.’ The fact that you still defer to B:CP as the source of your logic and theory proves this.

What HAS taken place over the past 35 years is a VALIDATION of the notion that behavior is in fact a function of an input control process. THIS IS HUGE. But unfortunately it is also INSUFFICIENT to interest most who might be interested in this concept.

Why? Because most people ALREADY know that behavior is purposeful. What has been missing is WHY? CONTROL PROVIDES THE ANSWER but it’s not well understood yet HOW.

We know that intent arises out of control. We may also assume then that cognition also arises out of control. But does it? We don’t know yet. I think it does.

But more important WHAT IS IT about control that provides the protocritc processes necessary for intent?

I have some ideas and they do not fit into the current hierarchy. The current hierarchy may be a part of what I am attempting but it is NOT the whole ball of wax.

Some of the major advances (and I
apologize to anyone I’ve left out) include Powers’ simulations like the
Little Man, Crowd and inverted pendulum, Dick Robertson’s reorganization
study, Richard Kennaway’s multidimensional control models and my own
research and models described in my two books.

Rick, these are NOT ADVANCES. Some are CONFORMATION of theory and others like Robertson’s reorganization work is some more unconfirmed speculation. This is not a bad thing, but it did nothing for us in having a better understanding of what ‘reorganization’ may or may not be. An ‘advance’ is when one part of a theory is redone because of data that has shown the model in need of adjustment.

You bet. What experiments are you thinking of?

I count 3 ‘failed’ collaborations that we all know little about because Bill
dismisses them out of hand. Work with Martin Taylor, Bruce Abbott, and most
recently John Flach.

I think it would be great to discuss these failures. I know that two did
seem to involve failed experiments (Taylor and Abbott) and I think it would
be useful to make clear what failed and what could be done to improve the
experiments.

Thank you.

The Flach collaboration did not involve a failed experiment. It involved a
failure to agree that a basic finding in the tracking literature (apparent
adaptation in terms of change in the human transfer function when there is a
change in the order of the control device) could be accounted for by the
behavior of a two level control system that does not adapt. But a discussion
of what happened in that hopeful collaboration would be worthwhile as well.

What I am interested in seeing is what varied from expectation and why.

I think that’s a very good idea. Perhaps we could start by having Martin
Taylor and Bruce Abbott describe what they did and why they think things
went wrong.

I’m on a roll, Two good ideas in a row. Yes, I would love to see this as well.

I want to see the data, the facts. Not someone’s interpretation of them.

Me too. That’s a great idea!

A RECORD, three in a row. Careful Rick, you don’t want to agree with me too much. If your not careful you might even begin asking me for some of my ideas and think they might be interesting and have some merit. You are on a slippery slope my friend.

Behavior is a function of cognition. Intent if you will. Cognition may or may
not be more than just a function of control. Exactly what do you disagree with
in this statement?

It’s hard to say because there are many different ways to understand words
like these. What do you mean by “behavior”, “cognition”, “intent” and even
“function”? I have my own ways of understanding these words that may lead me
to disagree when, in fact, there is no disagreement. That’s why models are
so nice. It makes things a bit more concrete – for me anyway.

I agree that models are more ‘concrete’ then words. But mathematics is not a perfect description of the real world. Have you ever seen a triangle in nature?

So although extremely useful in helping us clarify our logic and relationships, it is less useful as a descriptive tool about what entities are

Using my understanding of the words, I guess I would say that some behavior,
but certainly not all, is cognitive. The idea of behavior being a function
of cognition makes no sense to me because behavior, to me, is control.

Yes, I know. I am simply saying that it is NOT the ‘behavior’ that most psychologists are interested in. They are interested in the cognitive processes that lead to the behaviors they see, and THOSE cognitive processes are control systems as well. PCT currently treats these control processes as black boxes. Which is really no different from what anyone else currently does. You offer no new insights for psychologists. In order for them to benefit by PCT they would have to understand how ‘intent’ functions. NOT how a control loop functions, but as a bunch of ECU’s that are represented, NOT by neural signals, but by the cognitive processes that form perceptions, which of course are the same thing at a different scale.

Why do you think the ‘Method of Levels’ is so popular? Are you dealing with perceptions at the scale and level that are neural signals or with thoughts already formed?

In essence if any psychologist had an interest in you outfielder model, and I don’t know why any would, they would have to try and figure out why the outfielder controlled for one thing or another. Performing the TesT may help you understand what the ultimate reference level might be at any point in time, but what the TesT does not, and cannot tell you is HOW that came about. And THAT Rick is what most psychologists are interested in.

Yes, when someone asks “Why do we do what we do?” The answer is because of “CONTROL”. For a psychologist that is a BEGGINNING, not the end result.

So
cognitive behavior is simply control of variables that I would call
“cognitive”. The process of controlling these cognitive variables is what I
would call cognition. So controlling the state of a crossword puzzle or
chess game is what I would call cognition. In these cases, behavior is not a
function of cognition; it is cognition.

HALLELUJAH YES, YES, YES. Just like the chemical and neural processes are ‘behavior’ and ‘controlled’ as well.

Which view is useful DEPENDS ON WHAT YOUR PURPOSE IS.

Thank you Rick

Marc
10

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.03.0940)]

Marc Abrams (2004.12.02.1814)

But more important _WHAT IS IT_ about control that provides the protocritc
processes necessary for intent?

I can't find "protocritic" (or anything close) in the dictionary.

I have some ideas and they do not fit into the current hierarchy.

If we leave "protocritic" out of your question, then PCT already provides
the answer. The negative feedback loop is the process necessary for intent.

Yes, when someone asks "Why do we do what we do?" The answer is because of
"CONTROL". For a psychologist that is a _BEGGINNING_, not the end result.

For nearly all psychologists "control" is not even the beginning of an
answer. Few psychologists know what control and even fewer know that
behavior is a control process. This is why PCT is not interesting to
psychologists; it's about something that they don't know exists and that
many believe can't exist: the phenomenon of control or purposeful behavior

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

11

From [Marc Abrams (2004.12.03.1302)]

In a message dated 12/3/2004 12:44:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.03.0940)]

Marc Abrams (2004.12.02.1814)

But more important WHAT IS IT about control that provides the protocritc
processes necessary for intent?

I can’t find “protocritic” (or anything close) in the dictionary.
Sorry, my fault. Karl Pribram used the word to talk about the critical first biological processes involved in feelings and emotion. You can find it in Emotion: Theory, Practice, Research and Experience Vol. 1, Chapter 10 The Biology of Emotions and Other Feelings, Edited by Robert Plutchik and Henry Kellermen.

Btw, they are, as Pribram says; Homeostatic. This of course means that they are in fact controlled, and as Pribram also explains that what is being controlled is the ‘stimuli,’ that is ‘input’ for those not in the know.

So Pribram has a very nice input control model of emotions. But it is NOT compatible with the structure of HPCT.

This is a five volume set that cost me a small fortune but is the seminal work in emotions to date

I have some ideas and they do not fit into the current hierarchy.

If we leave “protocritic” out of your question, then PCT already provides
the answer. The negative feedback loop is the process necessary for intent.
Maybe Rick. The notion of positive feedback doesn’t disappear from the literature because you happen to wave your hand. There are many explanations for some of this and it is certainly possible that positive feedback is not involved. The real question though is what is producing it. You can accomplish the same things by having two or more separate negative feedback processes for each goal. Or you might have one that can switch.

We need to look at how this might happen. If you feel comfortable with what you have, and it certainly seems like you do, terrific. I wish you luck. I will not be thorn in your side. As I said to Bill. My intent was not to hurt.

This is one reason why Richardson’s book is so important IF you are truly interested in the study of feedback thought in social systems. He outlines the arguments very nicely between the cybernetic camp of negative feedback only, with the Servomechanism crowd that utilizes positive feedback as well.

The question of which thread is ‘right’ has not been settled. What is unique about PCT, is that Bill has a hybrid model? His philosophy is from the cybernetic camp, and the goal oriented behavior is from the servomechanism crowd.

Yes, when someone asks “Why do we do what we do?” The answer is because of
“CONTROL.” For a psychologist that is a BEGGINNING, not the end result.

For nearly all psychologists “control” is not even the beginning of an
answer. Few psychologists know what control and even fewer know that
behavior is a control process. This is why PCT is not interesting to
psychologists; it’s about something that they don’t know exists and that
many believe can’t exist: the phenomenon of control or purposeful behavior.
Yes Rick and it is unfortunate that we have not been able to show others how they might benefit from knowing what we know. It is OUR problem, NOT theirs. They are blissfully going around not having a real clue in the world.

But then again, NEITHER do we because if we did we would be able to tell them what it is they are missing and it should be clear to them that they are indeed missing something.

Rick, I share the passion for what PCT represents. Unfortunately as a salesman for 25 years I know what it takes to ‘sell’ something new. I specialized in new technology. I was selling micro computer software in 1982 for the TRS-80, Apple I, and Ohio Scientific. In fact my first computer was an Ohio Scientific with 16K of ram and no disk drive. I used a cassette tape recorder for storage. I moved to An apple when they came out with their floppy disk and the Apple at the time had 48K. and at the time that was HUGE. In 1982 I sold $300K, in 1983 I sold $3.5 million, in 1984 I went out of the software selling business.

The reason was simple. First there was video games like Pong, then Atari came out with a console. Computers came out and people thought they would be able to do a great deal more on computers then they could on a game console so computers over took game consoles. In 1983 IBM entered the micro market and ‘legitimized’ micro’s for business use and computers took off. I happen to be in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately I made what would prove to be a disastrous business decision. MY company (I owned it) had two sales offices and we covered the territory from the NY metro area to Washington, DC. I decided to stay in the home software market rather then move into the business software market.

People found out very quickly that all they could really do on the computers was play games and no one really needed to do their checkbooks on it, so the home computer market dried up and went back to games and I went into the business of consulting high tech startups in their marketing and sales programs.

The point of this diatribe is to tell you that the market ALWAYS decides what is and is NOT successful. Anyone for an 8 track tape, or Beta VCR system?

Rick, if you are afraid of failure you will never ever make it, IN ANYTHING.

Like Bill, you are perfectly happy where you are and I have no desire to see you in any other place then where you want to be. This thread is now over. :slight_smile:

Marc

Marc

12

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.03.1400)]

Marc Abrams (2004.12.03.1302)--

Rick Marken (2004.12.03.0940)--

If we leave "protocritic" out of your question, then PCT already provides
the answer. The negative feedback loop is the process necessary for intent.

Maybe Rick. The notion of positive feedback doesn't disappear from the
literature because you happen to wave your hand.

Just because something is in the behavioral literature doesn't mean it is
useful for understanding intention. In fact, much of my work (inspired by
Bill's 1978 Psych Review paper subtitled "Some spadework at the foundations
of experimental psychology") is aimed at showing that most of the research
results published in the literature of experimental psychology is useless
for understanding intentional (purposeful) behavior.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.