# Java, Learning, Defending

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/java-learning-defending/5929>\
**Category:** CSG1996\
**Created:** [December 1, 1996, 6:11am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/java-learning-defending/5929 "1996-12-01T06:11:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 1996, 6:11am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/java-learning-defending/5929/1 "1996-12-01T06:11:59Z")

</div>

> From Rick Marken (961130.2210)

David Goldstein ( 961130.1015)--

> I think Rick did a great job with his web page.

Thank you. Thank you.

> Rick, how hard was it to learn Java?

I don't know. I haven't learned it yet;-)

Actually, Java is said to be an easy language to learn. But the ones who  
are saying it are mainly computer science types, it seems. I'm finding it  
rather tough because it is object oriented (OO) and I have had zip  
experience with OO; It is also network oriented, which makes some  
things unusual; for example, Java won't store data locally -- for  
security reasons -- so you have to build your own server to save data;  
that's why my programs don't save data; I haven't learned how to do it yet.

So Java can be learned; but it's not a walk in the park (for me, anyway).

Bruce Abbott (961130.1355 EST)

> Do you \_know\_ that all control-learning depends on random  
> reorganization, that there are no more efficient processes available  
> to rat or human?

No. But I'm not objecting to your model because you are proposing  
a non-random reorganization system. I am objecting to it because the  
system you are proposing cannot possibly learn to control. At least,  
this is the way it seems to me based on your description of the model.  
You are proposing a system that repeats the perception that occurred  
prior to a reward. I can't believe that such a system can learn to control.  
But maybe I'm missing something. Why not just program the model so we  
can see how it works?

Bruce:

> What empirical observations DO you see as offering difficulties for HPCT  
> as now constructed? Surely after 14 or so years you've run into \_some\_.

Me:

> Are you asking "what empirical observations \_have already been\_ made that  
> offer difficulties for HPCT as now constructed?" If so, then obviously the  
> answer is "none".

Bruce:

> Why do you suppose that is?

Because if you mean "what \_future\_ empirical observations DO you  
see as offering difficulties for HPCT" then the only possible answer  
I can think of is the one I already gave: any observation that is  
inconsistent with a prediction of the model.

> So a mechanism that uses the perceptual signals available to it to determine  
> which reference(s) to vary could not possibly learn to control, but a  
> mechanism that merely chooses them at random (i.e., e-coli reorganization)  
> can?

If your mechanism uses perceptual signals to determine which references  
to \_vary\_ , then it probably can learn to control and I withdraw my  
objections. You kept saying that your model selects a particular perceptual  
reference to repeat -- the reference for the perception that occurred before  
the reward. If what is learned is how to \_vary\_ a reference signal, then  
what your system is learning is transfer functions -- and everything is  
fine. Again, why not program it up so we can see how it works.

Me:

> If you don't want your neighbor to kill you, then there are basically  
> three ways to deal with the problem; 1) control him 2) negotiate with  
> him or 3) defend against him.

Bruce:

> There are only three ways to implement Option 3: (1) Make yourself  
> unavailable (hide, or lock yourself in a fortress) (2) get him before he  
> gets you, and (3) control him.

Controlling and defending are two different things. When someone  
tries to hit you and you put up your hand to block it, you are simply  
resisting a disturbance. You are not controlling the position of the hand  
(the disturbance); you are controlling the perception of the relationship  
between the hand and your face and the hand is a disturbance to that  
relationship.

> So if you want to live a normal life it comes down to two options:  
> control or negotiate...I'm all in favor of the latter, but before it can  
> happen, my neighbor has to be willing to listen. If he won't, then there  
> is nothing left to do but control .

There is always nothing to do but control. But you don't have to control  
your neighbor to defend against him. If your neighbor wants to hurt you  
and that's that, then you will defend against him; you will control your  
perception of being hurt.

Controlling your neighbor means getting him to behave in a particular  
way. If you want to make him \_not want to hurt you\_ or if you want to  
make him \_have the right values\_ then you would be trying to control him.

When you defend, you just resist a disturbance to a controlled variable.  
When you control a cursor, for example, you \_defend\_ the perception  
of the cursor from the disturbance; but you don't try to control the  
disturbance. You \_would\_ be controlling the disturbance if you tried to  
make it be a constant rather than a sine wave, for example.

> As I recall, negotiation was the option Nevil Chamberlin chose. When that  
> failed, he was forced into Option 1.

No. He was forced only to option 3 and even then he was "forced" only  
because he was controlling for things like the survival of the nation.

Tracy Harms (1996;11,30.17)

> "defend" in Rick's useage does not mean \*solve\*. It clearly  
> precludes control; you can't slip control back into it.

Excellent, Tracy. This is exactly what I meant (as noted above).

Best

Rick