[Martin Lewitt 23 Aug 2010 1446 MDT]
John Hawks web site has something that may lead to other efforts to enhance or replace the humans as rational actors assumption in economic models. It is currently the most recent entry:
Here is a link to the specific entry:
http://johnhawks.net/node/14605
regards,
Martin L
[From Rick Marken (2010.08.23.1820)]
�Martin Lewitt (23 Aug 2010 1446 MDT)--
John Hawks web site has something that may lead to other efforts to enhance
or replace the humans as rational actors assumption in economic models.
Whether people act rationally or not has always struck me as a good
example of an economic question that completely misses the point.
People don't "act"; they control. They control for getting food,
shelter and other goods and services; they control for getting money
so that they can exchange it for these things. They control for all
these things in all kinds of different ways;sometimes in ways that
might seem rational and sometimes in ways that might seem irrational
to some mathematically inclined economist. But economics is not about
rationality (or "decision making" or "choosing"). It's all about
controlling. The economist who misses that (and basically all
economists do miss that) misses the point completely.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
(gavin Ritz 2010.08.24.21.30)
[From Rick Marken (2010.08.23.1820)]
Martin Lewitt (23 Aug 2010 1446 MDT)--
.
It's all about controlling.
Hey Rick
Explain to me how we control the creativeness within us.
Give us some great examples how Mozart controlled for the great compositions he did. Or how Einstein controlled for the novelty of the space-time concept. Or how Van Gogh controlled for his famous corn fields painting. What is the relationship between control and creativeness?
Regards
Gavin
[From Rick Marken (2010.08.24.0830)]
(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.24.21.30)
Rick Marken (2010.08.23.1820)--
.
�It's all about controlling.Hey Rick
Explain to me how we control the creativeness within us.
If, indeed, we control "creativeness" then I presume we do it the way
we control any variable (see control system diagram in B:CP; the
variable qo would be "degree of creativeness").But I don't think we
control "creativeness" (or creativity, which I believe is the correct
word for what you are describing). I think "creativity" is a word that
describes what certain kinds of controlling looks like from an
observer's point of view, such as the controlling done by Mozart,
Einstein and VanGogh (all favorites of mine, too).
Give us some great examples how Mozart controlled for the great compositions
he did. Or how Einstein controlled for the novelty of the space-time
concept. Or how Van Gogh controlled for his famous corn fields painting.
What is the relationship between control and creativeness?
I don't know _how_ they controlled for the extraordinary results that
they produced. But I can tell you _that_ those results were, indeed,
controlled. There are even legendary examples of "tests for the
controlled variable" that prove that these results are controlled. For
example, when Emperor Joseph II said that the "Nozze di Figaro" had
"too many notes" that was treated as a disturbance by Mozart. From
Wolfgang's perspective (and mine) "Le Nozze" is perfect as is; taking
away any notes would make it less perfect. Clearly, Mozart's
perception of the opera was right at his reference for it. I would
guess that if you suggested to Einstein that E = mc^3 he would
protest, seeing that as a disturbance to his result. And Van Gogh
would probably protest your suggestion that he should lighten up on
the paint in his "Irises" (which is right here at the Getty;
extraordinary work).
The mystery is where these magnificent references come from. My guess
is that it involves reorganization (random variation and selective
retention of references) in the context of a great deal of existing
skilled control systems; control systems that are skilled, that is, in
their ability to control musical variables (in Mozart's case),
quantitative variables (in Einstein's case) and visual variables (in
Van Gogh's).
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.25.18.52.NZT)
[From Rick Marken (2010.08.24.0830)]
(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.24.21.30)
Rick Marken (2010.08.23.1820)–
.
It’s all about controlling.Hey Rick
Explain to me how we control the creativeness within us.
If, indeed, we control “creativeness” then I presume we do it the way
we control any variable (see control system diagram in B:CP; the
variable qo would be “degree of creativeness”).But I don’t think we
control “creativeness” (or creativity, which I believe is the correct
word for what you are describing).
I think “creativity” is a word
that
describes what certain kinds of controlling looks like from an
observer’s point of view, such as the controlling done by Mozart,
Einstein and VanGogh (all favorites of mine, too).
Ok then how about the word novelty, or beget. Something out of so “called nothing”
How do you know that creativity is an observers point of view “word”.
Give us some great examples how Mozart controlled for the great compositions
he did. Or how Einstein controlled for the novelty of the space-time
concept. Or how Van Gogh controlled for his famous corn fields painting.
What is the relationship between control and creativeness?
I don’t know how they controlled for the extraordinary results that
they produced. But I can tell you that those results were, indeed,
controlled.
If you don’'t know how they are controlled specifically then you cant really tell me that it was controlled. As I
said once before you cant create a Picasso out of 5 stones.
There are even legendary examples of “tests for the
controlled variable” that prove that these results are controlled.
You really cant be serious. Which proofs and where are the proofs that creativity is controlled.
For
example, when Emperor Joseph II said that the “Nozze di Figaro” had
“too many notes” that was treated as a disturbance by Mozart.
You aren’t telling me that this is a proof are you?
From
Wolfgang’s perspective (and mine) “Le Nozze” is perfect as is; taking
away any notes would make it less perfect. Clearly, Mozart’s
perception of the opera was right at his reference for it. I would
guess that if you suggested to Einstein that E = mc^3 he would
protest, seeing that as a disturbance to his result. And Van Gogh
would probably protest your suggestion that he should lighten up on
the paint in his “Irises” (which
is right here at the Getty;
extraordinary work).
Surely this has nothing to do with the question at hand.
The mystery is where these magnificent references come from. My guess
is that it involves reorganization (random variation and selective
retention of references) in the context of a great deal of existing
skilled control systems; control systems that are skilled, that is, in
their ability to control musical variables (in Mozart’s case),
quantitative variables (in Einstein’s case) and visual variables (in
Van Gogh’s).
Okay so you cant be sure that these are even references. That is only a signal. How is the quality aspect dealt with, music is much more than music variables. Skilled control has to do with coordination and you explain that adequately with your baseball paper. ie paint brush to canvas as the controlled variable but the creativity and novelty is totally unexplained.
I dont even think you
can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that’s controlled. If you are then that is your “controlled variable”.
regards
Gavin
[Martin Lewitt 2010 Aug 25 0353]
Natural selection probably provided us with a number of things that
we control for that might contribute to creativity. If the
thought processes involved in the creation of new designs or
strategies became enjoyable then we would control for them. If
potential mates were attracted to better providers, creative
problems solvers, geniuses, good communicators, persuasive liars,
traveling minstrels, etc. then controlling for greater number,
choice or quality of mates might result in controlling for
development of these other skills. Communication skills and thus
probably the valuing of communication skills were probably important
to human survival and competition for resources against other human
groups. Perhaps the genes that improved these skills or that
resulted in greater appreciation for these skills resulted in
spandrels like the creation and enjoyment of music and singing. Why
are there singing stars, why are there groupies? Why were
traveling minstrels successful at obtaining opportunistic matings
despite the unlikelihood that they would be around to invest in the
resultant offspring. Were their genes judged likely to increase
evolutionary fitness? Perhaps yes, if they resulted in more
traveling minstrels!
Each of our messy half-evolved brains may be genetically inclined
to control for many different things that contributed to
evolutionary fitness in past environments, competition for resources
and milieu of other genes. If genes for creativity had survival
value, then genes for enjoying creativity and genes for creativity
groupies would have a synergistic reinforcing effects helping genes
for creativity to spread rapidly through populations.
Martin L
On 8/25/2010 1:16 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote:
(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.25.18.52.NZT)
[From Rick Marken (2010.08.24.0830)]> (Gavin Ritz 2010.08.24.21.30) > >> Rick Marken (2010.08.23.1820)-- > . > It's all about controlling. > > Hey Rick > Explain to me how we control the creativeness withinus.
If, indeed, we control "creativeness" then I presume we doit the way
we control any variable (see control system diagram in B:CP;the
variable qo would be "degree of creativeness").But I don'tthink we
control "creativeness" (or creativity, which I believe isthe correct
word for what you are describing). I think "creativity" is a word that describes what certain kinds of controlling looks like froman
observer's point of view, such as the controlling done byMozart,
Einstein and VanGogh (all favorites of mine, too). Ok then how about the word novelty, or beget. Something outof so “called nothing”
How do you know that creativity is an observers point ofview “word”.
> Give us some great examples how Mozart controlled forthe great compositions
> he did. Or how Einstein controlled for the novelty ofthe space-time
> concept. Or how Van Gogh controlled for his famous cornfields painting.
> What is the relationship between control andcreativeness?
I don't know _how_ they controlled for the extraordinaryresults that
they produced. But I can tell you _that_ those results were,indeed,
controlled. If you don''t know how they are controlled specificallythen you cant really tell me that it was controlled. As I
said once before you cant create a Picasso out of 5 stones.There are even legendary examples of "tests for the controlled variable" that prove that these results arecontrolled.
You really cant be serious. Which proofs and where are theproofs that creativity is controlled.
For example, when Emperor Joseph II said that the "Nozze diFigaro" had
"too many notes" that was treated as a disturbance byMozart.
You aren't telling me that this is a proof are you? From Wolfgang's perspective (and mine) "Le Nozze" is perfect asis; taking
away any notes would make it less perfect. Clearly, Mozart's perception of the opera was right at his reference for it. Iwould
guess that if you suggested to Einstein that E = mc^3 hewould
protest, seeing that as a disturbance to his result. And VanGogh
would probably protest your suggestion that he shouldlighten up on
the paint in his "Irises" (which is right here at the Getty; extraordinary work). Surely this has nothing to do with the question at hand. The mystery is where these magnificent references come from.My guess
is that it involves reorganization (random variation andselective
retention of references) in the context of a great deal ofexisting
skilled control systems; control systems that are skilled,that is, in
their ability to control musical variables (in Mozart'scase),
quantitative variables (in Einstein's case) and visualvariables (in
Van Gogh's). Okay so you cant be sure that these are even references.That is only a signal. How is the quality aspect dealt with,
music is much more than music variables. Skilled control has
to do with coordination and you explain that adequately with
your baseball paper. ie paint brush to canvas as the
controlled variable but the creativity and novelty is
totally unexplained.I dont even think you can say, without a shadow of a doubt,that’s controlled. If you are then that is your “controlled
variable”.regards Gavin
[From Rick Marken (2010.08.25.1000)]
Gavin Ritz (2010.08.25.18.52.NZT)--
Rick Marken (2010.08.24.0830)]
RM: I think "creativity" is a word that
describes what certain kinds of controlling looks like from an
observer's point of view, such as the controlling done by Mozart,
Einstein and VanGogh (all favorites of mine, too).
GR: How do you know that creativity is an observers point of view "word".
I don't know it. That is my view of creativity -- indeed, of all
behaviors, creativity just being one kind of behavior -- as informed
by my understanding of behavior based on PCT.
RM: I don't know _how_ they controlled for the extraordinary results that
they produced. But I can tell you _that_ those results were, indeed,
controlled.GR: If you don''t know how they are controlled specifically then you cant
really tell me that it was controlled.
It turns out that it's not really necessary to know how a variable is
controlled in order to know _that_ it is being controlled. You can see
this by doing my famous "Mind Reading" demo at
Mindreading. The computer
knows nothing about how a character's position on the screen is being
controlled; it is just applying an algorithm based on the steps
involved in carrying out the "test for the controlled variable" as
described in B:CP and, if the subject is controlling the position of
one of the characters, the computer can correctly identify the
controlled character based on the results of this algorithm.
RM: There are even legendary examples of "tests for the
controlled variable" that prove that these results are controlled.
GR: You really cant be serious. Which proofs and where are the proofs that
creativity is controlled.
I don't believe that "creativity" is controlled; it's the _results_
created by people we consider to be creative, such as Mozart's musical
creations, that are controlled. And rather than "proves" I should have
said "tests"; I was using "prove" in the archaic sense, to mean
"test", as in "the exception proves the rule"..
RM: For example, when Emperor Joseph II said that the "Nozze di
Figaro" had"too many notes" that was treated as a disturbance by
Mozart.GR:You aren't telling me that this is a proof are you?
No, not a proof in the deductive, mathematical sense. I meant that it
is a "test" of whether the opera is a controlled result of Mozart's
actions. If the opera is controlled, then any attempt to change it
would be considered a disturbance by its creator. So suggesting that
the number of notes in the opera be reduced was treated as a
disturbance by Mozart. So this is one piece of evidence, admittedly
anecdotal but certainly credible, that "Le Nozze" was a controlled
result of Mozart's actions and that the opera, as performed, was just
the way Mozart wanted it: it was at Mozart's reference level for that
opera.
RM: From Wolfgang's perspective (and mine) "Le Nozze" is perfect as is;
taking away any notes would make it less perfect...GR: Surely this has nothing to do with the question at hand.
I thought it did. But maybe not. What was the question at hand?
RM: The mystery is where these magnificent references come from.
GR: Okay so you cant be sure that these are even references.
I can be reasonably sure that these creations are at their reference
level by applying the test and noting the resistance to disturbance,
or lack of it.
GR: How is the quality aspect dealt with, music is much more than music
variables.
If by "quality" you mean the fact that the opera is experienced as
that glorious combination of sight and sound that we experience when
we go to the opera, when we know that the opera we experience is
really just a bunch of neural impulses in the brain, then I have to
say that that aspect of things is not dealt with by PCT -- or any
other theory that I know of. It is a true and marvelous mystery.
If by "quality" you mean the fact that the opera seems so good to some
people (it certainly doesn't seem good to all people; I myself used to
think of opera as just a bunch of shrieking; the only thing I liked
about Mozart operas were the overtures) then that would be dealt with
in PCT in terms of the reference signals in the observer of the opera.
"Quality" perceptions are those that match our reference signals.
GR: Skilled control has to do with coordination
Not necessarily. In a simple tracking task where there is just one
output you can control skillfully (keep the cursor near the target)
without necessarily coordinating that output with any other outputs.
GR: and you explain that
adequately with your baseball paper. ie paint brush to canvas as the
controlled variable
Great. We agree on something.
GR: but the creativity and novelty is totally unexplained.
Actually, I think that PCT does provide an explanation of what we see
as creativity; certainly as good of an explanation as any others that
I've heard. What PCT doesn't necessarily provide is the _right_
explanation. That has to be determined by experimental test and since
there have been none it seems kind of uninteresting to be arguing
about the merits of a PCT explanation of creativity. If you know of
another explanation of creativity that has been tested then that would
be interesting to hear about it. Then maybe we could see if we could
develop a PCT explanation of the observations accounted for by that
other theory and start proposing some research to test to see which is
the better explanation of creativity. The first step in this process
would surely be to explain exactly what phenomenon we are talking
about when we are talking about "creativity".
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
From Bill Powers (2010.08.25.1117 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2010.08.25.1000)–
Writing to Gavin Ritz, you have said something that sprang an idea
loose:
RM: If by “quality”
you mean the fact that the opera is experienced asthat glorious combination of sight and sound that we experience when
we go to the opera, when we know that the opera we experience is
really just a bunch of neural impulses in the brain, then I have to
say that that aspect of things is not dealt with by PCT – or any
other theory that I know of. It is a true and marvelous
mystery.
BP: Yes it is. But the part that suddenly stood out was “that
glorious combination of sight and sound that we experience when we go to
the opera…”
As far as PCT is concerned, there is no control system that can perceive
“that glorious combination of sight and sound.” Each control
system controls only a single scalar variable. It can’t know what
components go into producing its single scalar perceptual signal, because
it perceives only the output of its own perceptual input
function.
Therefore awareness is not any kind of perception recognized today in
PCT. In MOL, yes. In PCT, no. In the field of awareness we find many
different perceptions existing at the same time, with differing qualities
and representing different levels in the hierarchy so far defined. That
is not possible to represent as a scalar variable. The complexity of the
field of awareness indicates that some completely different process is
involved, different from what is happening at any level of the hierarchy
so far recognized. The kind of perceptual function involved is not a
many-to-one function. It is at least many-to-many. But more than that, it
simply IS. We can be aware of “the glorious combination” while
we are aware of the elements being combined, while we are aware of where
we are (at the opera) while we are aware of the feelings evoked by the
spectacle. Awareness is not tied to one perception or one modality or one
level. We can hear the tap of the conductor’s baton on the podium –
tick, tick! – and the quieting of the audience and the orchestra and the
the glorious opening chords and melodies and sequences and …
everything. All at once.
Surely it is this glorious combination that we know as reality. The
totality of experience. Like, you know, the whole thing: it’s no
wonder we run out of words. It’s too much to fit into one word, or any
finite number of them. We will never finish describing reality, or
discovering new things about it.
Awareness is still a mystery, but now it seems less remote, more real,
more present. It is what enables us to experience large chunks of the
hierarchy at the same time, at any level or many levels, in sight, sound,
touch, taste, and so on down a long list. Where we go from here is not
clear, but it’s clearly to some different place, some new set of ideas.
Fortunately, there are a lot of awarenesses around to pay attention to
them. It feels as though I’ve taken a step from one place to another
that’s been right next door for some time, but I still can’t see where I
am. Is anyone else seeing what I see?
Gavin Ritz has sometimes seemed annoying with his far-out interpretations
of this and that. But he has been snooping around opening doors to see
what is behind them, and even if I don’t wholly trust his eyesight, I
think he has loosened things up by his curiosity and boldness. He raised
the questions that brought forth Rick Marken’s comments that jogged me
into a different place, so thank you, Gavin. Live long and
prosper.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2010.08.25.1250)]
Bill Powers (2010.08.25.1117 MDT)--
Rick Marken (2010.08.25.1000)--
Writing to Gavin Ritz, you have said something that sprang an idea loose:
RM: If by "quality" you mean the fact that the opera is experienced as
that glorious combination of sight and sound that we experience when
we go to the operaBP: Yes it is. But the part that suddenly stood out was "that glorious
combination of sight and sound that we experience when we go to the
opera..."
Wow, that was great. The sixties make a lot more sense to me now;-)
No, really, this was a beautiful observation. It does help me
understand a lot about perception/awareness that I was not aware of;-)
Gavin Ritz has sometimes seemed annoying with his far-out interpretations of
this and that.
He has a ways to go before he reaches the levels of annoying that have
been achieved by some of the CSGNet superstars of annoyance.
But he has been snooping around opening doors to see what is
behind them, and even if I don't wholly trust his eyesight, I think he has
loosened things up by his curiosity and boldness. He raised the questions
that brought forth Rick Marken's comments that jogged me into a different
place, so thank you, Gavin. Live long and prosper.
Glad we could be of service;-)
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
(gavin Ritz 2010.08.26.21.53NZT)
From Bill Powers (2010.08.25.1117 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2010.08.25.1000)–
Writing to Gavin Ritz, you have said something that sprang an idea
loose:
RM: If by “quality”
you mean the fact that the opera is experienced asthat glorious combination of sight and sound that we experience when
we go to the opera, when we know that the opera we experience is
really just a bunch of neural impulses in the brain, then I have to
say that that aspect of things is not dealt with by PCT – or any
other theory that I know of. It is a true and marvelous
mystery.
BP: Yes it is. But the part that suddenly stood out was “that
glorious combination of sight and sound that we experience when we go to
the opera…”
GR:I’m talking about the creativeness not just listening, that PCT covers very well.
As far as PCT is concerned, there is no control system that can perceive
“that glorious combination of sight and sound.” Each control
system controls only a single scalar variable. It can’t know what
components go into producing its single scalar perceptual signal, because
it perceives only the output of its own perceptual input
function.
G: I dont think this is such a big deal for PCT to cover, just mix up the the higher control systems a bit and you can have mixed modalities.
Therefore awareness is not any kind of perception recognized today in
PCT. In MOL, yes. In PCT, no. In the field of awareness we find many
different perceptions existing at the same time, with differing qualities
and representing different levels in the hierarchy so far defined. That
is not possible to represent as a scalar variable. The complexity of the
field of awareness indicates that some completely different process is
involved, different from what is happening at any level of the hierarchy
so far recognized. The kind of perceptual function involved is not a
many-to-one function. It is at least many-to-many. But more than that, it
simply IS… We can be aware of “the glorious combination” while
we are aware of the elements being combined, while we are aware of where
we are (at the opera) while we are aware of the feelings evoked by the
spectacle. Awareness is not tied to one perception or one modality or one
level. We can hear the tap of the conductor’s baton on the podium –
tick, tick! – and the quieting of the audience and the orchestra and the
the glorious opening chords and melodies and sequences and …
everything. All at once.
Surely it is this glorious combination that we know as reality. The
totality of experience. Like, you know, the whole thing: it’s no
wonder we run out of words. It’s too much to fit into one word, or any
finite number of them. We will never finish describing reality, or
discovering new things about it.
Awareness is still a mystery, but now it seems less remote, more real,
more present. It is what enables us to experience large chunks of the
hierarchy at the same time, at any level or many levels, in sight, sound,
touch, taste, and so on down a long list. Where we go from here is not
clear, but it’s clearly to some different place, some new set of ideas.
Fortunately, there are a lot of awarenesses around to pay attention to
them. It feels as though I’ve taken a step from one place to another
that’s been right next door for some time, but I still can’t see where I
am. Is anyone else seeing what I see?
Gavin Ritz has sometimes seemed annoying with his far-out interpretations
of this and that. But he has been snooping around opening doors to see
what is behind them, and even if I don’t wholly trust his eyesight, I
think he has loosened things up by his curiosity and boldness. He raised
the questions that brought forth Rick Marken’s comments that jogged me
into a different place, so thank you, Gavin. Live long and
prosper.
GR: No worries, then. I will comment further about this but I’m on a business trip and dont have the greatest amount of spare time. But i will say there is a line, (metaphorically) below this line its all control above this line it’s all creativity. I friend of mine now the same age as you Bill. Has spent his entire career, he’s a maths and chem man, on this issue of creativity, which is also related to learning. Learning is often the connection of unrealted concepts with novelty as an outcome. But that’s another issue.
I have spent the last 20 years on this. I’m personlly not that interested in the control issues I believe you have this covered in PCT. You have thoroughly covered one aspect of Holism (JC Smuts), the other not at all. My interest lies the the combination of both. Where for me the creativity is…
As you are aware I have developed a mental model which I believe covers key aspects of this. I have tested
my model against thousands of people. When i was in human resources (luckily I was the HR Manager of a large corporate) I profiled thousands of people and refined the model to a number of elements for which all humanity controls for.
In response to your question above. Quality has a number of meanings, the quality of things, all things have a quality which includes the sensual quality.
quality is like a variety generator.
Regards
Gavin