[From Rick Marken (960925.0930)]
Me:
Actually, if I am the subject, what is controlled is the relationship
between what I say ("restricted" or "unrestricted") and what the KR says
("restricted" or"unrestricted").
Bruce Abbott (960924.1745 EST) --
Are you hedging your bet by giving two contradictory answers, or have you
discarded the first in favor of this one?
No. I was agreeing with your proposal for what is controlled. I just couldn't
bring myself to admit it;-)
So _somehow_ the reorganization system "knows" to reorganize the perceptual
function (as opposed to the output function); perhaps the output function
was varied first, to no avail, so now the input function becomes the target?
I suppose. I don't know how the reorganization process might actually work in
this situation. We'd have to do experiments. I was basing my answer on my own
experience of spending hours in an anechoic chamber indicating whether bursts
of noise contained a tone or not. It seems to me that I was learning to
perceive these noise bursts in new and interesting ways.
You say, to Jeffrey B. Vancouver (092496.1435) --
You add that "there is no input into the control system that turns the
reorganizing process on or off with knowledge of results." I'm not clear
what you mean. You seem to be saying that whether there is a match or not
has no effect on whether or not the reorganizing system is actively
reorganizing the input.
No. I think Jeff is saying that the input itself doesn't turn reorganization
on or off; it's the input relative to intended input. As long as actual and
intended input match, there is no reorganization. It is a mismatch between
actual and intended input -- not input alone -- that turns reorganization on
or off.
If the subject is controlling the relationship between his responses and the
KR, then KR is not really input; it is a disturbance to a controlled variable
(the relationship between response and KR). So KR doesn't drive
reorganization any more than the disturbance to the cursor in a tracking task
drives reorganization. Even the actual input to the control system (the
perceived relationship between response and KR) doesn't drive reorganization.
Reorganization is driven by a persistent discrepency between actual and
intended input. The relationship between response and KR has an influence on
reorganization only if it is _not_ the relationship that is intended.
Hans Blom (960925b) --
Me:
There is no more evidence for an external "God" in human life than
there is for "internal models" in human controlling.
Hans:
there is plenty of evidence for an "internal" God in a great many people.
Non sequiter. Is there any evidence -- ANY -- for "internal models" in human
controlling?
An imagined perception originates somewhere. There must be some "machinery"
that generates this imagination. I call that machinery an "internal model".
But there is no evidence that this "machinery" is involved in human
controlling. You talk about "internal models" the way we talk about "genes"
and "mass" and "reference signals". This really borders on the psychotic;
there is plenty of reliable, empirical evidence for the existence of "genes"
and "mass" and "reference signals" so it makes sense to talk about these
things as though they really existed. There is no empirical evidence _at all_
for the existence of "internal models" so talk of them is really of interest
only to fellow members of the MCT faith.
Hans:
Can you, like God (well, you introduced Him ;-), look into the hearts (or
brains) of people?
Me:
Well, now that you mention it, yes. Have you seen the "mind reading"
demo?
Hans:
If I remember correctly, your "mind reading" demo did not read minds at all
but depended on people performing observable, no, observED actions. I'm
looking forward to a demo where you truly read a mind, e.g. where the
subject does not use a mouse but only thought about or concentrated on one
of the presented items.
When I say "mind" I mean "the intentions that exist in a person's brain".
In order to "read a mind" you have to read something in order to determine
the unseen intention. What people typically "read" in order to determine
another person's intention is "observed actions". The "mind reading" demo is
set up so that it is impossible to read intentions from observed actions
(mouse movements and movements of objects on the screen). In this sense, the
subject's mind (intentions) is invisible in the mind reading demo. The
computer is able to read the subject's intentions because it sees not only
the subject's "observed actions" but also disturbances that are invisible to
anyone else looking at the subject's behavior.
The mind reading demo was not aimed at showing some supernatural capability;
it was aimed at showing that it is impossible to tell what a person is
"doing" (even though you can clearly see all their observable actions) if you
don't know a person's intentions; and you can't see a person's intentions by
looking at their observable actions. In order to be able to read a person's
mind (intentions), and, thus, know what the person is "doing", you have to
know what an intention is (a reference for the state of a perceptual
variable) and you have to know _how_ to read a person's intentions (by
Testing for Controlled Variables).
Glad you got so much out of the demo;-)
The Test seems inapplicable to situations in the past, and especially once-
only events, where we have only one sample.
It's true that only a limited version of The Test can be applied to past
events. In real life, where behavior is on-going and intentions are always
changing, it is also difficult to use a formal version of The Test. The point
of what I said about The Test, however, is that it shows that we can
determine intent _in principle_. Our PCT demos, where we do The Test under
carefully contrived conditions, show that we can also detrmine intent _in
fact_.
But it's really not that hard to determine real life and past intentions with
pretty high certainty. The evidence that OJ intentionally murdered two people
is overwhelming; the evidence that his scumbag lawyers were controlling for
nothing but fame and money is overwhelming; the evidence that you intend to
see the detection of intention ("mind reading") as fantasy is compelling.
Have a nice internally modelled day;-)
Best
Rick