From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.03.0152)]
In a message dated 11/2/2005 11:12:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, t_b_harms@YAHOO.COM writes:
I rejoined CSGnet this past weekend. What produced
the disturbance that accounts for this behavior was
the traffic on a discussion list I joined recently
where theories of consciousness are given a lot of
attention. I found myself repeatedly bringing up PCT,
sometimes directly, sometimes tangentally. I became
so tired of reading about how living things control
their behavior, and getting no nibbles to my
assertions to the contrary, I thought I’d spend some
time among a more comfortable crowd.
Wonderful!!, how do you see PCT involved with cognition?
I view the levels as ‘trash cans’ that don’t tell us much about the processes involved. I use the term ‘trash cans’ as used in organizational theory. That is, as repositories of varied ideas and concepts all jumbled together
My interest is in cognition. That is, how does control explain how we come to our ‘programs’, ‘principles’, and ‘systems’? To say that one level depends on the other for existence simply pushes the problem off into an infinite regress and does not really answer any questions.
Where and how does the top level come into existence and how does the concept of reorganization (another trash can) come into play?
Of course all of the answers to these questions must correlate with, and be plausible with our current understandings in physiology and microbiology, and neurobiology
Models are wonderful logic checkers, but the validity or truthfulness of any model can be seen only when the model, using real world data validates observation. To date, Rick & Co, have done a nice job of showing the existence of the control of perceptions. What is not clear is how this all takes place and the models to date have not been able to point us in a direction of where and how we might be able to investigate these questions.
I hope your rejoining the group will help spark some discussions in this area.
Not that I rejoined to participate in political
debates, mind you. Those weren’t the conversations I
remember most fondly. I doubt I’ll be willing to keep
out of them altogether. Case in point: Rick, I don’t
think PCT can distinguish conservatives from liberals
by which of the canonical levels they can, will, or do
apply to evaluating Supreme Court nominees.
Me too, what is your guess as to how this happens?
I still have some intent to increase my abilities at
the technical side of PCT, but in my absence what
small attention I’ve put to math and engineering did
not advance my competence in these areas. As a
result, many of the conversations that strike me as
offering me the most are still not conversations I can
productively join. Perhaps some of you could suggest
texts that involve more control-systems engineering
applications and examples, so that brushing up on
calculus will be more engaging.
It depends on what you are interested in and where you want to focus.
Is cognition an interest of yours? If so, are you interested in the physiology involved in cognition, or functionality?
I’m afraid from my experience, engineering books on control are strong on the control end and weak on the physiology involved. If functionality is your interest I believe there are many valuable books out there from many disciplines but it’s going to be up to you to pull it all together under the control or PCT banner.
From a modeling and mathematics viewpoint I would strongly recommend; Lessons in Mathematics A Dynamic Approach: With Applications across the Sciences, by Diana Fisher and is available from ISEE Systems;
http://www.hps-inc.com/store/college_university/MathBook.aspx
It has a CD and combines learning System Dynamics modeling and integrating it with high school math from algebra to the calculus. It’s $99.00 and worth every penny. The only math book that I have seen that shows the importance of mathematics and how it can be applied to the real world.
I wish I would have had this book when I was a teen.
Regards,
Marc
···