imagination and memory

[Jeff_Vancouver2]

[from Jeff Vancouver 990722.1100 EST]

As I mentioned to Marc, I am interested in the ramifications of chapter 15
and have been for some time. As I understand it the connection between
output (of the output function) and input (into the input function) via
memory can be used to predict the results of actions (actually reference
signals to lower-level units) on perceptions. My question is, because
reference signals do not always result in perceptions that match them, would
it not be the perceptual signals from the lower level systems that would
allow the system to tie sub-systems to the control of perceptions or to
anticipate (or guess) the results to high-level perceptions?

Let me give you a specific example. I am proposing a study in which
participants revise schedules to meet a budget goal for the schedules.
Schedules are presented that disturb the hypothesized controlled variable
(cost of schedule). To get the perception of cost of the schedule to the
budget goal, participants delete time blocks. In an earlier study, I made
half the participants (apologies to the within-subjects only crowd) click a
button on the computer screen to see the cost of the schedules. With one
exception they did and usually several times. However, they did not have to
all the time. They could have deduced that deleting time blocks would
reduce the cost to below the goal, and hence the control system that acted
when the goal was met could have an error based on a predicted perception,
not an actual one. But it is not the act of clicking the correct buttons
(on the screen) that allows them to believe they deleted a time block, but
the perception that in fact, a time block was deleted (the controlled
perception of the lower-level control system). Hence, what is linked in
memory is not actions to perceptions, but perceptions to perceptions.
Specically, lower-level perceptions to higher-level perceptions. Does this
make any sense?

Jeff

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (990722.1539) ]

HI Jeff. Have to like your tenacity :-). If I may, a first impression.

[from Jeff Vancouver 990722.1100 EST]

As I mentioned to Marc, I am interested in the ramifications of chapter 15
and have been for some time

Good. Can we ( you, I, hopefully the net ) discuss and come to some
agreement on what those "ramifications" are? There seems to be a lot of
variance as to what the "ramifications" mean and what they are. One of
lessons I have learned from the archives is that more seems to get done with
less acrimony when a definition of the problem exists and is agreed upon by
the participants.

As I understand it the connection between
output (of the output function) and input (into the input function) via
memory can be used to predict the results of actions (actually reference
signals to lower-level units) on perceptions.

This is what I mean :-). I don't think you would get a whole lot of
agreement on these assumptions. Everything else that follows from them
becomes irrelevant if those assumptions are not agreed upon,

First I hope Bill responds to this post. He is basically out of touch ( at
the conference and on a small vacation ) for awhile. Let me take a first
pass at this without directly addressing your question. I am going to
address what I think we need to do in order to model the proposed modes in
Chap 15.

First, What are we trying to model? What kinds of data would be helpful,
needed, or useful?

Well, my take on Chap 15 is that Bill is proposing a memory component to the
control model. He talks about 4 modes a loop can "operate" in. One of them
is the "control mode" ( the mode we now use exclusively to represent the
entire "Controlling Process" ) The 3 other modes, Imagination mode, Passive
Observation mode, and Automatic mode are _not_ control modes. They are
proposed modes that allow the processing of information from _memory_
something our model does not currently do ) in different ways. It does
_not_ change how control takes place. It changes what and how information
goes through the "Controlling Process". I distinguish between "control mode"
( which is what most of us think about when we think of control ) and the
"Controlling Process" which might include several loops and levels that are
_not_ in control mode, yet are very much a part of the "Controlling Process"
of a CV.

So in order to _begin_ to think about modeling this we need to _initially_
think about 4 things.
1) We need to understand the effects of the modes. Not individually, but in
combinations. So we need to think in terms of two to three Levels minimum.
We also need to make certain assumptions about the characteristics of the
Levels we are going to model and the implication that each of those modes
might have on the types of level we want to model. This is _extremely_
important. This provides the context to specify a CV. So the question then
becomes, Given certain modes and combination of modes, what effect would
those modes have on specific levels with regard to a specific CV. Once this
is done we can be begin to think about the kinds of data that would benefit
the effort. The modeling effort and data collection can now begin.

Do you agree with my assessment? If yes, Can you restate your example in
these terms? If not where do we differ?

Marc

[Bruce_Gregory8]

from [Bruce Gregory (990722.1854 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (990722.1539)

So in order to _begin_ to think about modeling this we need to _initially_
think about 4 things.
1) We need to understand the effects of the modes. Not
individually, but in
combinations. So we need to think in terms of two to three Levels minimum.
We also need to make certain assumptions about the characteristics of the
Levels we are going to model and the implication that each of those modes
might have on the types of level we want to model. This is _extremely_
important. This provides the context to specify a CV. So the question then
becomes, Given certain modes and combination of modes, what effect would
those modes have on specific levels with regard to a specific CV.
Once this
is done we can be begin to think about the kinds of data that
would benefit
the effort. The modeling effort and data collection can now begin.

This approach seems very complex to me. What would be most helpful, I would
think, would be a specification of what variables you think might be
controlled. If you can identify these and subject them to the Test, you will
have made a significant step forward. At that point you can worry about how
the reference levels might have been established, but that is a much more
difficult question to answer.

Bruce Gregory

[Jeff_Vancouver2]

[from Jeff Vancouver 990723.1000 EST]

from [ Marc Abrams (990722.1539) ]

"1) We need to understand the effects of the modes. Not individually, but in
combinations. So we need to think in terms of two to three Levels minimum.
We also need to make certain assumptions about the characteristics of the
Levels we are going to model and the implication that each of those modes
might have on the types of level we want to model. This is _extremely_
important. This provides the context to specify a CV. So the question then
becomes, Given certain modes and combination of modes, what effect would
those modes have on specific levels with regard to a specific CV. Once this
is done we can be begin to think about the kinds of data that would benefit
the effort. The modeling effort and data collection can now begin.

Do you agree with my assessment? If yes, Can you restate your example in
these terms? If not where do we differ?"

Marc,

I agree with 2-3 levels in model. I am less sure what you mean be
"assumptions," so it is hard to agree/disagree (former prefered). One
assumption I would make is that all the levels modeled would be "relatively
high" (e.g., program to category). What I am having trouble with
conceptually is learning. Assuming a I am correct that memory stores a
perception-perception link (where one is higher than the other), how is that
link created. Can we model that? Or would that be an assumption (given a
link in memory, here is how imagination mode might work...)?

Jeff

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (990722.2000)]

From [Bruce Gregory (990722.1854 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (990722.1539)

> So in order to _begin_ to think about modeling this we need to

_initially_

> think about 4 things.
> 1) We need to understand the effects of the modes. Not
> individually, but in
> combinations. So we need to think in terms of two to three Levels

minimum.

> We also need to make certain assumptions about the characteristics of

the

> Levels we are going to model and the implication that each of those

modes

> might have on the types of level we want to model. This is _extremely_
> important. This provides the context to specify a CV. So the question

then

> becomes, Given certain modes and combination of modes, what effect would
> those modes have on specific levels with regard to a specific CV.
> Once this
> is done we can be begin to think about the kinds of data that
> would benefit
> the effort. The modeling effort and data collection can now begin.

This approach seems very complex to me. What would be most helpful, I

would

think, would be a specification of what variables you think might be
controlled. If you can identify these and subject them to the Test, you

will

have made a significant step forward. At that point you can worry about

how

the reference levels might have been established, but that is a much more
difficult question to answer.

Yep It's a complex problem. However you feel comfortable approaching the
situation is ok. It really doesn't matter how you prefer to go about
thinking about this . Whatever works for you. But you can't _model_
(describe) this situation I am talking about until _all_ 4 of those things
are considered. Yes it is a complex question, so? _Modeling_ the situation
is bit different then simply talking about aspects of it. Do you have
something specific in mind?

I say this because it's not simply a matter of what the CV is. It matters
to the modeling effort ) in what context you are looking at the CV, Both in
terms of mode and level. It would be extremely difficult to model a single
CV through all the Levels. So I think what we can hope to do is model a CV
_partially_ both in terms of the hierarchy and "modality". The purpose of
the exercise is to try and understand the use of memory, not the mapping of
a CV through the entire hierarchy ( whatever that hierarchy might be ).

Marc

[Bruce_Gregory8]

[From Bruce Gregory (990723.2044 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (990722.2000)

Yep It's a complex problem. However you feel comfortable
approaching the
situation is ok. It really doesn't matter how you prefer to go about
thinking about this . Whatever works for you. But you can't _model_
(describe) this situation I am talking about until _all_ 4 of those things
are considered.

Maybe if I knew what "this situation I am talking about" is, I could figure
out where to start.

Do you have
something specific in mind?

Do you?

I say this because it's not simply a matter of what the CV is. It matters
to the modeling effort ) in what context you are looking at the
CV, Both in
terms of mode and level.

What is the behavior you are trying to model?

It would be extremely difficult to model a single
CV through all the Levels. So I think what we can hope to do is model a CV
_partially_ both in terms of the hierarchy and "modality". The purpose of
the exercise is to try and understand the use of memory, not the
mapping of
a CV through the entire hierarchy ( whatever that hierarchy might be ).

Without something more concrete to model I can't contribute anything to this
effort. I really have no idea _what_ you are talking about. At least give me
a hint.

Bruce Gregory

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (990722.2045) ]

[from Jeff Vancouver 990723.1000 EST]

I agree with 2-3 levels in model. I am less sure what you mean be
"assumptions," so it is hard to agree/disagree (former prefered).

The hierarchy is a proposed structure. When we talk about a specific Level
Relationships, for example ) we are assuming that a Level with the
characteristics described by Bill does in fact exist. When we talk about the
various modes Bill proposed in Chap 15 we need to make certain assumptions
about which modes are in effect at what levels with regard to a specific CV.

One assumption I would make is that all the levels modeled would be

"relatively

high" (e.g., program to category).

Yes. I initially envisioned 3 "general" levels. The first level does not
have a memory component ( as proposed by Bill ) The second level would
represent either singularly ( a specific Level ) or a combination of lower
Levels. With the third Level representing either singularly or a combination
of higher Levels. With refinement coming from the iterative modeling
process. Which would incluse our ability to aquire data and to validate the
model against actual observations.

What I am having trouble with conceptually is learning. Assuming a I am

correct that memory >stores a perception-perception link (where one is
higher than the other), how is that

link created. Can we model that? Or would that be an assumption (given a
link in memory, here is how imagination mode might work...)?

"Learning" is a _very_ braod concept and can mean a lot of things. For
instance, Are you talking about how new "Controlling Processes" are formed
reorganization ). Are you talking about how we utilize memory to set
reference levlels?, etc Can you elaborate on your ideas about your
perception-perception link and how it differs from Bill's proposed modes.
The "links" as proposed by Bill were by switches. Dag Forssell proposed a
continuous approach.

Yes, I believe we can model it. It's not only how "imagination mode" or
"automatic mode" "work" what is essential is understanding the effects these
modes have on our ability to control. By that I mean _what_ we control and
how we might maintain and change CV's.

_Everything_ we model initially will be _assumptions_. We are initially
assuming that a) a hierarchy does in fact exist or is plausible. b) the
modes Bill proposed are in fact plausible c) That we have the ability to
acquire the necessary data to validate what we are doing. This will _not_ be
easy. It is complex and we are working from a number of initial assumptions.
But I think the payoffs are huge _if_ we can help validate the existence of
a hierarchy, memory modes, and the interactions both might have, in our
ability to control.

Marc

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (90722.2250) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (990723.2044 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (990722.2000)

> Yep It's a complex problem. However you feel comfortable
> approaching the
> situation is ok. It really doesn't matter how you prefer to go about
> thinking about this . Whatever works for you. But you can't _model_
> (describe) this situation I am talking about until _all_ 4 of those

things

> are considered.

Maybe if I knew what "this situation I am talking about" is, I could

figure

out where to start.

Testing Bill's proposals in Chap. 15 concerning memory.

Do you?

Not right now. Fred's example might be an interesting one. Jeff offered his
Budget model as an example. I am still in due dilligence mode. I am going
through the archives with a fine tooth comb to see what has already been
covered and said about Bills proposal. It's been terrific fun but very
distracting :-). In reading all the posts _lots_ of interesting things are
discussed so I am taking my sweet time reading, archiving ( into *.pdf
format ), and learning. I have no specific time table. This is a complex and
important issue and needs some thought and hopefully some discussion

What is the behavior you are trying to model?

I am trying to model the usage of memory in the "Controlling Process", and
test the hypothesis put forth by Bill in Chap 15 of B:CP

Without something more concrete to model I can't contribute anything to

this

effort. I really have no idea _what_ you are talking about. At least give

me

a hint.

I would like to model Bill's proposals in chap 15 and test the plausibilty
of the proposals. What do you consider "concrete" about the current control
model?

Marc

[Bruce_Gregory8]

[From Bruce Gregory (990724.0554 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (90722.2250)

I am trying to model the usage of memory in the "Controlling Process", and
test the hypothesis put forth by Bill in Chap 15 of B:CP

Fair enough. I have no idea how to do this, so I'll just watch! Good luck!

Bruce Gregory

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (990724.1039) ]

[From Bruce Gregory (990724.0554 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (90722.2250)

> I am trying to model the usage of memory in the "Controlling Process",

and

> test the hypothesis put forth by Bill in Chap 15 of B:CP

Fair enough. I have no idea how to do this, so I'll just watch! Good luck!

I don't think anyone does. ( including me :-), although I do have some
ideas ) That's one of the reasons I posted what I did to Jeff, and expressed
my concern about "framing" the problem properly. It hasn't been done
before, but others have had some opinions on it. I think a big difference
are the computer tools that are available today versus even a couple of
short years ago. As far as your capability or desire to help is concerned,
Filling out those 3 level diagrams with the different modes would be
helpful. Your interpretation of the modes as expressed by Bill is useful. If
you think the memory model proposed by Bill is not appropriate, do you have
something else in mind? Just trying to see what's out there in terms of
thought on memory.

Thanks for your good wishes, I am hoping that somewhere down the road, or
along the road, some other folks might have or take some interest in it.
However, judging from the initial response, I am not banking on it :-).

Nice to have you back on line.

Marc

[Dag_Forssell3]

[From Dag Forssell (990728.0800)]

[Marc Abrams (990727.1344) ]

[Chris Cherpas (990727.0930 PT)]

Does anyone know where I can view Dag's continuous model?

Dag made a presentation at the 1994 CSG conference about it. It's on tape #1
available from Dag for a very nominal cost. Tom Bourbon, and Bill are also
on the tape. _Highly recommended_

I have taped CSG conferences since 1993, with the exception of 1995. Each
conference typically fits on three Long Playing VHS, NTSC tapes. I ask for
$15 per tape plus $10 S&H. I have no suggestions for memory over and above
what is already portrayed in my speculative presentation.

The Control diagrams that Dag uses in his book on management "shows" the
memory connection but does not explain it.

My book is available for the asking as a pdf-file. Specify if your e-mail
account can handle 2 1/2 MB in one lump or if I should split it in two.

Best, Dag

Dag Forssell
dag@forssell.com, www.forssell.com
23903 Via Flamenco, Valencia CA 91355-2808 USA
Tel: +1 661 254 1195 Fax: +1 661 254 7956

[Bill_Curry2]

Hi Dag,

Forssell Translation Team wrote:

My book is available for the asking as a pdf-file. Specify if your e-mail
account can handle 2 1/2 MB in one lump or if I should split it in two.

Available for the asking--now there's a deal. Consider yourself asked:-)

My email system can handle the whole wad I'm told, so let 'er rip whenever your
workload clears. Thanks for your generosity for this and your other fine
efforts in documenting the evolution of PCT. I look forward to reading your
work.

Best wishes,

Bill Curry

···

--
William J. Curry
Capticom@olsusa.com
310.470.0027 thru 8.24.99
capticom@olsusa.com

[Jeff_Vancouver2]

[from Jeff Vancouver 990729.1600 est]

I have heard no comment on my model and the proposed extension of it to the
imagination model issue. Is it not clear how it could be used?

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (990729.1556) ]

[from Jeff Vancouver 990729.1600 est]

I have heard no comment on my model and the proposed extension of it to

the

imagination model issue. Is it not clear how it could be used?

Hi Jeff, Perhaps you missed this post: I have not heard anything with regard
to any of the issues I brought up in this post. Did I miss a post of yours?

Marc

from [ Marc Abrams (990722.1539) ]

HI Jeff. Have to like your tenacity :-). If I may, a first impression.

[from Jeff Vancouver 990722.1100 EST]

As I mentioned to Marc, I am interested in the ramifications of chapter 15
and have been for some time

Good. Can we ( you, I, hopefully the net ) discuss and come to some
agreement on what those "ramifications" are? There seems to be a lot of
variance as to what the "ramifications" mean and what they are. One of
lessons I have learned from the archives is that more seems to get done with
less acrimony when a definition of the problem exists and is agreed upon by
the participants.

As I understand it the connection between
output (of the output function) and input (into the input function) via
memory can be used to predict the results of actions (actually reference
signals to lower-level units) on perceptions.

This is what I mean :-). I don't think you would get a whole lot of
agreement on these assumptions. Everything else that follows from them
becomes irrelevant if those assumptions are not agreed upon,

First I hope Bill responds to this post. He is basically out of touch ( at
the conference and on a small vacation ) for awhile. Let me take a first
pass at this without directly addressing your question. I am going to
address what I think we need to do in order to model the proposed modes in
Chap 15.

First, What are we trying to model? What kinds of data would be helpful,
needed, or useful?

Well, my take on Chap 15 is that Bill is proposing a memory component to the
control model. He talks about 4 modes a loop can "operate" in. One of them
is the "control mode" ( the mode we now use exclusively to represent the
entire "Controlling Process" ) The 3 other modes, Imagination mode, Passive
Observation mode, and Automatic mode are _not_ control modes. They are
proposed modes that allow the processing of information from _memory_
something our model does not currently do ) in different ways. It does
_not_ change how control takes place. It changes what and how information
goes through the "Controlling Process". I distinguish between "control mode"
( which is what most of us think about when we think of control ) and the
"Controlling Process" which might include several loops and levels that are
_not_ in control mode, yet are very much a part of the "Controlling Process"
of a CV.

So in order to _begin_ to think about modeling this we need to _initially_
think about 4 things.
1) We need to understand the effects of the modes. Not individually, but in
combinations. So we need to think in terms of two to three Levels minimum.
We also need to make certain assumptions about the characteristics of the
Levels we are going to model and the implication that each of those modes
might have on the types of level we want to model. This is _extremely_
important. This provides the context to specify a CV. So the question then
becomes, Given certain modes and combination of modes, what effect would
those modes have on specific levels with regard to a specific CV. Once this
is done we can be begin to think about the kinds of data that would benefit
the effort. The modeling effort and data collection can now begin.

Do you agree with my assessment? If yes, Can you restate your example in
these terms? If not where do we differ?

Marc

[Jeff_Vancouver2]

[from Jeff Vancouver 990729.1630 EST]

Marc,

I did respond to your post (see below), but I have backed off modeling the
development of the memory (as I discussed in my response). Instead, I think
we can just show that memory exists and can influence perceptions (i.e.,
create anticipated perceptions). I should add that we could ask
participants what would happen to cost _if_ they deleted time blocks.

Jeff

[from Jeff Vancouver 990723.1000 EST]

from [ Marc Abrams (990722.1539) ]

"1) We need to understand the effects of the modes. Not individually, but in
combinations. So we need to think in terms of two to three Levels minimum.
We also need to make certain assumptions about the characteristics of the
Levels we are going to model and the implication that each of those modes
might have on the types of level we want to model. This is _extremely_
important. This provides the context to specify a CV. So the question then
becomes, Given certain modes and combination of modes, what effect would
those modes have on specific levels with regard to a specific CV. Once this
is done we can be begin to think about the kinds of data that would benefit
the effort. The modeling effort and data collection can now begin.

Do you agree with my assessment? If yes, Can you restate your example in
these terms? If not where do we differ?"

Marc,

I agree with 2-3 levels in model. I am less sure what you mean be
"assumptions," so it is hard to agree/disagree (former prefered). One
assumption I would make is that all the levels modeled would be "relatively
high" (e.g., program to category). What I am having trouble with
conceptually is learning. Assuming a I am correct that memory stores a
perception-perception link (where one is higher than the other), how is that
link created. Can we model that? Or would that be an assumption (given a
link in memory, here is how imagination mode might work...)?

Jeff

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU]On Behalf Of Marc Abrams
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 4:18 PM
To: CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: imagination and memory

from [ Marc Abrams (990729.1556) ]

[from Jeff Vancouver 990729.1600 est]

I have heard no comment on my model and the proposed extension of it to

the

imagination model issue. Is it not clear how it could be used?

Hi Jeff, Perhaps you missed this post: I have not heard anything with regard
to any of the issues I brought up in this post. Did I miss a post of yours?

Marc

from [ Marc Abrams (990722.1539) ]

HI Jeff. Have to like your tenacity :-). If I may, a first impression.

[from Jeff Vancouver 990722.1100 EST]

As I mentioned to Marc, I am interested in the ramifications of chapter 15
and have been for some time

Good. Can we ( you, I, hopefully the net ) discuss and come to some
agreement on what those "ramifications" are? There seems to be a lot of
variance as to what the "ramifications" mean and what they are. One of
lessons I have learned from the archives is that more seems to get done with
less acrimony when a definition of the problem exists and is agreed upon by
the participants.

As I understand it the connection between
output (of the output function) and input (into the input function) via
memory can be used to predict the results of actions (actually reference
signals to lower-level units) on perceptions.

This is what I mean :-). I don't think you would get a whole lot of
agreement on these assumptions. Everything else that follows from them
becomes irrelevant if those assumptions are not agreed upon,

First I hope Bill responds to this post. He is basically out of touch ( at
the conference and on a small vacation ) for awhile. Let me take a first
pass at this without directly addressing your question. I am going to
address what I think we need to do in order to model the proposed modes in
Chap 15.

First, What are we trying to model? What kinds of data would be helpful,
needed, or useful?

Well, my take on Chap 15 is that Bill is proposing a memory component to the
control model. He talks about 4 modes a loop can "operate" in. One of them
is the "control mode" ( the mode we now use exclusively to represent the
entire "Controlling Process" ) The 3 other modes, Imagination mode, Passive
Observation mode, and Automatic mode are _not_ control modes. They are
proposed modes that allow the processing of information from _memory_
something our model does not currently do ) in different ways. It does
_not_ change how control takes place. It changes what and how information
goes through the "Controlling Process". I distinguish between "control mode"
( which is what most of us think about when we think of control ) and the
"Controlling Process" which might include several loops and levels that are
_not_ in control mode, yet are very much a part of the "Controlling Process"
of a CV.

So in order to _begin_ to think about modeling this we need to _initially_
think about 4 things.
1) We need to understand the effects of the modes. Not individually, but in
combinations. So we need to think in terms of two to three Levels minimum.
We also need to make certain assumptions about the characteristics of the
Levels we are going to model and the implication that each of those modes
might have on the types of level we want to model. This is _extremely_
important. This provides the context to specify a CV. So the question then
becomes, Given certain modes and combination of modes, what effect would
those modes have on specific levels with regard to a specific CV. Once this
is done we can be begin to think about the kinds of data that would benefit
the effort. The modeling effort and data collection can now begin.

Do you agree with my assessment? If yes, Can you restate your example in
these terms? If not where do we differ?

Marc

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (990729.1636) ]

[from Jeff Vancouver 990729.1630 EST]

Marc,

I did respond to your post (see below), but I have backed off modeling the
development of the memory (as I discussed in my response). Instead, I

think

we can just show that memory exists and can influence perceptions (i.e.,
create anticipated perceptions). I should add that we could ask
participants what would happen to cost _if_ they deleted time blocks.

Ok. We can _discuss_ your model with memory "added" to it. But we need to be
able to model it. To do that we need to have 2 things, ultimately. One, is
the representation. The second is the data. What do you mean by "memory
exists and can influence perceptions". That's what we are testing for.
_That_ is the purpose of the modeling effort. To see if and what kind of
effects memory might have on our "Controlling Processes". I asked

From [ Marc Abrams (990722.1539) ]

"1) We need to understand the effects of the modes. Not individually, but

in

combinations. So we need to think in terms of two to three Levels minimum.
We also need to make certain assumptions about the characteristics of the
Levels we are going to model and the implication that each of those modes
might have on the types of level we want to model. This is _extremely_
important. This provides the context to specify a CV. So the question then
becomes, Given certain modes and combination of modes, what effect would
those modes have on specific levels with regard to a specific CV. Once

this

is done we can be begin to think about the kinds of data that would

benefit

the effort. The modeling effort and data collection can now begin.

Do you agree with my assessment? If yes, Can you restate your example in
these terms? If not where do we differ?"

Marc,

You answered with

I agree with 2-3 levels in model. I am less sure what you mean be
"assumptions," so it is hard to agree/disagree (former prefered). One
assumption I would make is that all the levels modeled would be

"relatively

high" (e.g., program to category). What I am having trouble with
conceptually is learning. Assuming a I am correct that memory stores a
perception-perception link (where one is higher than the other), how is

that

link created. Can we model that? Or would that be an assumption (given a
link in memory, here is how imagination mode might work...)?

This response did not answer my questions. Can you restate your original
model in terms of
the modes presented by Bill in Chap 15 or ones of your own invention. Can
you specify a CV and what aspects of that CV ( which levels? probably the
higher ones ) we will be modeling. For this particular model ( memory ) to
work we must make two _initial_ assumptions. One is the CV we wish to study.
But only in the context of a) certain levels and information processing
modes in and between those levels. We need to keep this _very_ complex model
as simple as possible. So We can only look at _part_ of the issues you bring
up in your budget model. What aspects of the model should we focus on?
That's up to you. You need to come back with _3_ things.
1) An assumed CV
2) 3 levels ( take your pick ) and aspects of the CV that reside at each
level.
3) The combination of modes ( as proposed by Bill or yourself ) that account
for the "information" flow ( perceptions and reference levels ) between
levels.

If you can do that, then we can start talking about a model. Because, even
though we don't _currently_ have the necessary data to validate the model,
the model might provide us with a clue as what kind of data might be useful
and whether we can get our grubby little paws on it. If we can, then we have
a chance of setting up an experimental design to gather the darn stuff :-).
If not, it might prove to be a useful exercise in what our current
limitations are. Either way I don't think we lose.

Are you willing to give it a shot? I don't know how helpful this would be to
your intended design. So I would not be surprised, based on your tenacity
:-), if you took another path. Maybe others on the net have a different
angle on this.

Marc

[Jeff_Vancouver2]

[from Jeff Vancouver 990930.0950 EST]

Marc,
That's up to you. You need to come back with _3_ things.

Nicely laid out - easy to respond to.

1) An assumed CV
2) 3 levels ( take your pick ) and aspects of the CV that reside at each
level.

I think you are actually asking for at least 3 CV's: one for each level.
And if a level has more than one unit, it may have more CVs relevant to that
level. However, I think 2 levels will due for this model, so I will specify
the CVs I hypothesize and how to test for them.

The higher-level CV is "cost of schedule." I have already conducted a study
which tests for this CV by disturbing cost, blocking cost, and observing
results. The jist of this study has been posted to this net, but I am happy
to send you the article I have under review about it.

The lower-level CV is "deleted time block." In order to get the cost of
schedule below the goal I assign participants, they must delete time blocks
for the RNs scheduled (assuming the schedule is over budget, and they have
accepted and are controlling for the cost of schedule CV at the level
assigned [i.e., the cost CV is disturbed]). To delete a time block, they
right-click on it, which evokes a dialog box asking if they are sure they
want to delete the time block. I planned to not always evoke that dialog
box as a method of blocking the deleted time block CV (I was going to record
the right-click with a time stamp). I also thought that I would ask if they
right-clicked (on some trials) so I could show that they knew they did the
behavior, but were not satisfied until they got the response (deleted time
block).

3) The combination of modes ( as proposed by Bill or yourself ) that

account

for the "information" flow ( perceptions and reference levels ) between
levels.

Okay, this is clearly the tricky part. What I am thinking is that we can
model (and test) two of the modes. First, what I call the assumption mode
(it most corresponds to Bill's automatic mode, but not quite). The idea is
that I might not have a signal from the environment that represents
accurately the current state (or that represents it, but does not take into
account that the actions I have taken take time to be realized because of
lag in the environment). But I know in memory that the actions, which are
really the perceptions of lower-level systems (e.g., perceptions of deleted
time blocks), result in changing the higher level perception (e.g., cost of
schedule).

So, for example, if we tell participants that the scheduling program does
not always function well in that sometimes when you delete a time block, it
does not update the cost of schedule information, but that you can be
assured that the deletion, and hence real cost of schedule will be
appropriately affected, then participants would evoke this mode of control
(phew, long sentence). They would act as if cost was being effected by
actions even though they could not see the results on the higher-order
system, only the lower-order system. To model this, we simply need to have
a connection between the perception of deleted time block (the lower-level
perception) to the input function of the higher-level unit, which currently
has a direct connection to the environment. Seems pretty easy to me. What
I mean by "assume memory is in place" is that the weight attached to the
connection between the perception coming from the lower-level input function
to the higher-level input function is not zero. The tricky part is
controling the weight of that connection. The tricky part I eliminated is
accounting for it in the first place.

The other mode is imagination. We would simple ask them to tell us what
happens to the cost of schedule if they delete a time block. To model this,
we need a connection from the output function of the higher (or lower?) unit
to the input function of the higher (or lower?) unit. Again, the issue of
the weight of that connection and when it is not zero is the issue.

I do not expect that I have answered all your concerns (I have not answered
all mine). This is an iterative process.

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (990730.1657) ]

[from Jeff Vancouver 990930.0950 EST]
>
> Marc,
>That's up to you. You need to come back with _3_ things.

Nicely laid out - easy to respond to.

>1) An assumed CV
>2) 3 levels ( take your pick ) and aspects of the CV that reside at each
>level.

I think you are actually asking for at least 3 CV's: one for each level.

No :-). What I am actually asking for is a high level CV that encompasses at
least one or more higher levels or one that encompasses a mid-level and high
level aspect.

And if a level has more than one unit, it may have more CVs relevant to

that

level. However, I think 2 levels will due for this model, so I will

specify

the CVs I hypothesize and how to test for them.

Hold on :-). Your running way ahead of me. What is the purpose of your
model? What are you trying to explain? I'm afraid I've lost you :-). If you
are trying to see if in fact certain variables are being controlled, then
I'm not your man for this model. _My_ interest is in seeing how the various
"memory" modes affect information flow through the hierarchy and how
perceptions and reference levels may be established through those modes.

The higher-level CV is "cost of schedule." I have already conducted a

study

which tests for this CV by disturbing cost, blocking cost, and observing
results. The jist of this study has been posted to this net, but I am

happy

to send you the article I have under review about it.

At what level are you conjecturing that "Cost of Schedule" resides? If "Cost
of schedule" is a CV ( no reason to doubt you ) How were the reference
levels set and the perceptions gotten for this CV? Was memory involved? If
so. How? I'll send you a 3 level diagram. If you could "map" out the
Reference signal and the perceptions between the 2 levels it would be helpul
for me to visualize.

The lower-level CV is "deleted time block."

Relative to "Cost of Schedule" where does this CV reside? At what level? Can
you make a diagram of this one too?

>3) The combination of modes ( as proposed by Bill or yourself ) that
account
>for the "information" flow ( perceptions and reference levels ) between
>levels.

Okay, this is clearly the tricky part. What I am thinking is that we can
model (and test) two of the modes. First, what I call the assumption mode
(it most corresponds to Bill's automatic mode, but not quite). The idea

is

that I might not have a signal from the environment that ...

Now I am totally lost. _please_ fill out the diagrams showing the
information flow between levels. This I think would be a good starting
point. I'll send you a sample in "imagination mode" and a "basic" diagram
that has the first level filled in and the upper two levels blank.

Marc

[Isaac_Kurtzer1]

i.kurtzer (990730.2155)

>From [ Marc Abrams (990730.1657) ]

> [from Jeff Vancouver 990930.0950 EST]
> >
> > Marc,
> >That's up to you. You need to come back with _3_ things.
>
> Nicely laid out - easy to respond to.
>
> >1) An assumed CV
> >2) 3 levels ( take your pick ) and aspects of the CV that reside at each
> >level.
>
> I think you are actually asking for at least 3 CV's: one for each level.

No :-). What I am actually asking for is a high level CV that encompasses at
least one or more higher levels or one that encompasses a mid-level and high
level aspect.

Could you explain want you mean by this?

> And if a level has more than one unit, it may have more CVs relevant to
that
> level. However, I think 2 levels will due for this model, so I will
specify
> the CVs I hypothesize and how to test for them.

Hold on :-). Your running way ahead of me. What is the purpose of your
model? What are you trying to explain? I'm afraid I've lost you :-). If you
are trying to see if in fact certain variables are being controlled, then
I'm not your man for this model.

If you, Dr. Vancouver, are trying to model certain/actual controlled variables I
say "go for it!!". I don't think dealing with abstractly what-if variables is
what we need. But rather actual controlled variables.

i.

[Marc_Abrams2]

from [ Marc Abrams (990730.2202) ]

i.kurtzer (990730.2155)

If you, Dr. Vancouver, are trying to model certain/actual controlled

variables I

say "go for it!!". I don't think dealing with abstractly what-if

variables is

what we need. But rather actual controlled variables.

I am with Isaac. I think what your trying to do is _perfectly_ reasonable
and I encourage you to pursue it. Maybe someone else on the net ( as I
mentioned in my post )might be in a better position to help you accomplish
what you want if it differs significantly from what I am trying to do. As I
said in my initial post to you, maybe we need to identify explicitly what we
are attempting to accomplish. We _all_ have our own agenda's, don't we
Isaac?

One final thought on CV's. Actually, _my_ thought on looking at CV's. We
control so many of them at any point in time that knowing any _one_ of them
is basically useless in _understanding_ human endeavor. Isaac, you are
certainly allowed your very narrow view of what "doing science" entails. I
really don't disagree with you on the need for that type of rigor in
investigation. But it is not the _only_ way to learn, unveil new concepts,
or make progress in theory building. It should be the _final_ test, but
there very well might be _many_ "pre-scientific" steps needed to reach that
point. Just something to consider.

Marc