Keep On Truckin'

CSGnet Archive CSG2008
1

[From Dick Robertson,2008.02.21/0935CST]

Oho, so that’s why my memory has been such a sieve lately: too much GABA. I’m truly enlightened.

Best,

Dick R.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:42 am
Subject: Keep On Truckin’
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU

[From Rick Marken (2008.02.20.0940)]

As some of you may know, I gave a talk on Perceptual Control
Theory (never using that name) to the Cognitive Forum at UCLA
last month. The Cognitive Forum is a group of faculty, graduate
and post-doc students interested in various aspects of cognitive
psychology. I wanted to share with these folks what I was up to,
modeling and research-wise, and possibly get one or two people
interested in doing work in the field. It ended up being a nice
reminder of why there are not more academic psychologists
involved with PCT. My talk was met with stony silence from grad
students and a couple of fairly hostile comments from the small
number of faculty members (two) who attended (and who I’m
sure were perceived as having scored points).

Yesterday I got an announcement of the next talk in the forum.
I’m attaching it to this message because I think it shows
what passes for science in psychology these days. Basically,
what passes for science in psychology is biology. I particularly
like this part of the abstract:

For example, mutations in the Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1) gene, encoding Neurofibromin, a p21Ras GTPase Activating Protein (GAP), cause learning disabilities and attention deficits. Our studies have shown that the learning and memory deficits of a mouse model of NF1 (nf1+/$B!>(B ) are caused by excessive p21Ras/MAPK signaling leading to hyperphosphorylation of synapsin I, and subsequent enhanced GABA release, which in turn result in impairments in long$B!>(Bterm potentiation (LTP), a cellular mechanism of learning and memory.

Pretty intimidating, eh? How could my talk, without a single mention of “p21Ras/MAPK signaling” and “hyperphosphorylation of synapsin I” possibly hope to compete. Who cares about closed loop models of behavioral organization when there is all that cool nf1+/$B!>(B to talk about? To me, these talks sound very much like using chemical analysis of a Pentium II chip to understand how a spreadsheet program works.

Pretty depressing. But I’ll still go with Mr. Natural’s advice and “Keep on Truckin’”.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

2

[From Bill Powers (2008.02.21.0830 MST)]

Rick Marken (2008.02.20.0940)]

How could my talk,
without a single mention of “p21Ras/MAPK signaling” and
“hyperphosphorylation of synapsin I” possibly hope to compete.
Who cares about closed loop models of behavioral organization when there
is all that cool nf1+/$B!>(B to talk about? To me, these talks
sound very much like using chemical analysis of a Pentium II chip to
understand how a spreadsheet program works.

There’s a way to get through to these folks, I think. In truth, the brain
and body are chemical-mechanical systems, and if things go wrong with the
chemistry or the mechanics, the best-organized control hierarchy possible
will have difficulties until the problem is fixed. So there is a grain of
truth in the idea that studying the chemistry can be helpful, just as it
was helpful to learn manufacturing techniques and the properties of
semiconductors before trying to build computers or write
programs.

However, as you suggest, knowing the chemistry and mechanics isn’t
enough. You can’t debug a program by analyzing magnetic domains or
silicon doping or by looking for scratches on the silicon wafer. You
can’t understand organizational problems, or even understand what an
organization does, just by looking at the pieces that make up the
organization. How much could you learn about baseball by analyzing a bat?

So understanding the meaning of the chemistry for the organization of
behavior requires that we understand what the whole system does, which is
where PC comes in. The gulf between chemistry and behavior is entirely
too wide to span in one jump. You can’t get from silicon to World of
Warcraft in one jump, either. The world of biology is gradually waking up
to something called “systems biology,” and PCT is a part of
what has to be learned about living systems. Not all of it, for sure, but
a big chunk of it – in fact, the point of it all.

You can say to the naive reductionists that they need PCT to find out
what their chemistry has to explain. It’s no longer enough to think of
behavior as the end-result of some causal chain. The correct model is not
the billiard ball or the chemical reaction, but the hierarchy of
self-reorganizing negative feedback control systems at every level of
organization. When you understand how living systems work at those levels
of organization, you’ll understand a lot more about why the chemistry at
the foundation is as it is.

And as was said before, do it all by demonstrations. Words aren’t enough.
But you can use these words the next time you try, if you wish.

Best,

Bill

3

[From Rick Marken (2008.02.21.2055)]

Bill Powers (2008.02.21.0830 MST)--

There's a way to get through to these folks, I think...

You can say to the naive reductionists that they need PCT to
find out what their chemistry has to explain...

And as was said before, do it all by demonstrations. Words aren't
enough. But you can use these words the next time you try, if you
wish.

As you know from you own experience, people who don't like what the
demonstrations show will react as angrily to them as would a believer
to a demonstration that there is no god (or an atheist to a
demonstration that there is one;-)). But I will definitely use the
demonstrations in my PCT seminar this Spring!

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com