Greetings

[Sand_Dollars]

[From Shannon Williams (971202.0000)]

Hi guys,

I have not talked with you for a while, and I wanted to let you
know something about what I was thinking and what I was doing.

What I am thinking:

···

-------------------
Negative Feedback loops are most of what you need to know to
understand how 'life' evolved, and PCT is most of what you need
to understand how 'living things' adapt. I have been having
discussions with many people about schizophrenia, language, manic
depression, prejudice, the physical development of the brain, and
the maturation stages of humans. I know very little about studies in
these areas, yet by using PCT, I was able to predict what a study
would and would not find, and hold my own in some sophisicated
arguments. PCT is like a little formula that allows you to make
predictions about anything physically or mentally related to the
functions of a 'living' organism.

What I am doing:
-----------------
My main interest is in cognitive science, but I have a horrible time
discussing cognitive theories with people who don't believe that
behavior is part of a negative feedback loop. Every once in a
while I see Peter Cariani on the other lists (Hi Peter!), but other
than him, most people's ideas of behavior/thinking/cognition are
very primative and unstructured.

In a perfect world, of course, I would be able discuss cognitive
theories on this list. But Bill and Mark have strong beliefs
in consciousness, free will, and the specialness of 'life', which
prevent (what I would find as) a meaningful discussion. Ironically,
PCT is the theory which allows us to explain away these concepts.
But, oh well, Bill and Mark want their beliefs. (I think that
Bill's and Mark's control for these particular beliefs is the 'cause'
of the Hydra that Bruce is constantly fighting.)

Since I cannot have my discussions here, I have been telling
other people about PCT. Maybe they will come here and
learn, and then we can talk intelligently. However, I figure that
I ought to let you know that I am doing this because you might
not like the way that I describe PCT. Also, maybe my
advertisement does not sound interesting. Many people tell
me that my descriptions of PCT sound like Skinnerian
theories or behaviorist theories. I have no idea what these
terms mean except that Mark thinks that Bruce is a
behaviorist, but I am pretty sure that PCT is not like any
other theory they have ever thought about.

My descriptions of PCT generally center around the concept
of the negative feedback loop. Here is my latest sample-
it is in the middle of a thread about neuronal structure and
plasticity, on a list devoted to "language and the brain":

***********************************************
If we assume that language is not different than other behaviors,
then there is a theory by William Powers called Perceptual
Control Theory (PCT) which he uses to explain behavior in
general, which we can use to explain language.

PCT (which is a math-based theory), treats behavior as
one part of a general negative feedback loop. Negative
feedback loops are very prevalent in biology. They maintain
an organism's sugar level, temperature, hormones, etc. They
maintain just about every process in the body. According to
William Powers, even our 'thinking' is part of a negative
feedback loop. Our 'thinking' leads to our behaviors, which
are used to change our perceptual input (how we 'think' the
world looks) to match our reference values (how we 'think'
the world ought to look). In fact, in PCT the concept of
'thinking' disappears, and is replaced by an organism's
attempts to make his perceptual inputs match his
reference values.

Using PCT, and setting language at the level of any other
human activity, then the phonological recognition aspect
of language just becomes sensory pattern recognition. The
phonological production becomes learned behavior
patterns. If PCT is correct, then when we know how
PCT is implemented in the brain, then we will know
how language works. Also, if we can implement
PCT in an AI unit, then we can create an AI unit that
can talk.

BTW- The web page for PCT is:
    http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/csg/

******************************************

BTW- I do not believe that language works as
I describe above. I believe that phonological production
is behavior just like any other behavior, but
phonological recognition is only one part of the
first step of generating perceptual input.

Any Comments?

Take Care,
Shannon

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (971202.0730 MST)]

Shannon Williams (971202.0000) --

Hi guys,

Hi back. Good to hear from you.

What I am thinking:
-------------------
Negative Feedback loops are most of what you need to know to
understand how 'life' evolved, and PCT is most of what you need
to understand how 'living things' adapt. I have been having
discussions with many people about schizophrenia, language, manic
depression, prejudice, the physical development of the brain, and
the maturation stages of humans. I know very little about studies in
these areas, yet by using PCT, I was able to predict what a study
would and would not find, and hold my own in some sophisicated
arguments. PCT is like a little formula that allows you to make
predictions about anything physically or mentally related to the
functions of a 'living' organism.

Be prepared. You can come up with correct predictions in all these fields,
but as far as any person in one of those fields is concerned, you haven't
said anything new. After all, that person knew what would happen. And that
person usually doesn't know anything about the other fields or doesn't
grant them equal status, so the broad applicability of your theory doesn't
make an impression. The person will hear your prediction as validation of
_his_ theory, not yours.

What I am doing:
-----------------
My main interest is in cognitive science, but I have a horrible time
discussing cognitive theories with people who don't believe that
behavior is part of a negative feedback loop. Every once in a
while I see Peter Cariani on the other lists (Hi Peter!), but other
than him, most people's ideas of behavior/thinking/cognition are
very primative and unstructured.

So what you've been doing is getting people pissed off at you? Everybody
else reading this please skip the next sentence.

[You're right]

In a perfect world, of course, I would be able discuss cognitive
theories on this list. But Bill and Mark have strong beliefs
in consciousness, free will, and the specialness of 'life', which
prevent (what I would find as) a meaningful discussion.

Goodness, what a primitive and unstructured attitude! But you should stick
around: Fred Nickols has just been at me for offering too mechanistic a
model of human behavior. Maybe, on the average, I have it right.

Ironically,
PCT is the theory which allows us to explain away these concepts.

If that's your goal, sure. Glad to be of service.

But, oh well, Bill and Mark want their beliefs.

I return the privilege. I think you mean "Rick," by the way. If you'll
pardon the expression (think);

(I think that
Bill's and Mark's control for these particular beliefs is the 'cause'
of the Hydra that Bruce is constantly fighting.)

Oh, I see that you think, too. Sorry.

Hmm. And I thought it was Bruce's rejection of the beliefs that caused it.

Many people tell
me that my descriptions of PCT sound like Skinnerian
theories or behaviorist theories.

I've heard that PCT is a theory of how to control people. Maybe that's what
they have in -- uh -- mind.

My descriptions of PCT generally center around the concept
of the negative feedback loop. Here is my latest sample-
it is in the middle of a thread about neuronal structure and
plasticity, on a list devoted to "language and the brain":

Not bad, but I'd take issue with a lot of it as long as we were talking
in-house. Your argument would benefit from giving more attention to the
hierarchy -- control happens on more than one level at a time.

As to PCT doing away with 'thinking', it may have had that unfortunate
effect on you, but I'm still cooking away quite satisfactorily at that level.

Best,

Bill P.

[Sand_Dollars]

[From Shannon Williams (971202.2300)]

Fred Nickols has just been at me for offering too mechanistic a
model of human behavior. Maybe, on the average, I have it right.

Maybe. But I don't know how you can believe in PCT and still believein free
will, consciousness, or the specialness of life. Don't get me wrong,
I think that life is special, and I prefer it. But there is no reason that
a computer cannot be as alive as you or I. In fact, PCT allows you
to see that this is so.

>(I think that
>Bill's and Mark's control for these particular beliefs is the 'cause'
>of the Hydra that Bruce is constantly fighting.)

Hmm. And I thought it was Bruce's rejection of the beliefs that caused it.

Well, whatever perspective you want.

Seriously though, I am leary about sending people to this group. (Not
that I have even succeeded in getting anyone to look at the website. But
someday...) I think that anyone who I would find interesting to talk to
will be able to handle the infighting, but they may not tolerate the word
games that break out when they inadvertently threaten your beliefs.

Consider just this one belief: You believe in free will.

To someone who does not believe in free will, there is nothing wrong
with saying that a 'stimulus will cause a behavior'. That statement is
like saying that a 'butterfly will cause a hurricane', except that the
stimulus has much more effect than the butterfly. Nor is there anything
wrong with those quotes that you dredged up from Skinner. He
believed in determinism. Well so?. That does not mean that he did not
understand life in the context of negative feedback loops. (Though
he probably did not). Likewise, Bruce may understand negative
feedback loops, but still not feel the need to use your 'precise'
terminology. A lot of your terminology just seems to be used to
maintain your perception of free will ( and the specialness of
life, etc. ).

Anyway, most of the people that I would like to bring to talk with
you may never share some of your fundamental beliefs. But
they can understand PCT, even though they may not see it
nor use it the way that you do. Are they welcome? Will you
want to argue with them?

Of course, maybe I am just the eternal optimist and even next
year at this time I will not have gotten anyone to look at your
website. Oh well. Some industry must be...

As to PCT doing away with 'thinking', it may have had that unfortunate
effect on you, but I'm still cooking away quite satisfactorily at that level.

Ok. I will re-word my future advertisements.

Take Care,
Shannon