[From Rick Marken (990720.2050)]
Marc Abrams (990719.1451)--
Ok, here is the key. The function of the control loop is to keep the
perceptual signal _tracking_ the reference signal. Now your if-then
contingency description makes sense. You _were_ speaking about the
loop function rather then a particular part ( parciptual signal ).
No problem
I would have said that I was speaking about control of a program
perception; but I'll assume that that's what you mean.
As an example of _control_ it [tracking] is unbeatable. But what
happens when someone is convinced that the phenomenon of control
exists and tries to explain everyday behavior(s) through the
existing model. (Which unfortuneately happens _all_ the time.)
You then start to do the Marken Shuffle ( akin to the Curly s
huffle from the 3 stooges).
).Why is using the model to explain everyday behavior "unfortunate"?
What is the model for if not for understanding everyday behavior.
One behavior that's happening everyday these days is catching
baseballs. I've used the existing model to explain this behavior.
Was this an example of the "Marken Shuffle"? If so, why? If not,
then what are you talking about?
You make believe that this stuff is of no significance. Yet
Bill himself talks about how _essential_ this is to the model.
No question this is a difficult and complex problem. But making
believe it doesn't exist ( It's not in the model ) doesn't make
it go away. It only makes people who are interested in real
behavior go away. I will not dispute the _fact_ that; a) most
people don't understand the basic model, so why go any further.
Rick do you think that all people that _use_ Newton's equations
are capable of discovering/inventing them. If you continue to
insist that people on the net must ultimately become theory
builders, I am afraid you are going to be sorely disappointed.
I have quoted a whole section here because quoting bite sized
pieces is taken by you as twisting your words. First, I don't
believe the part of PCT that deals with memory and imagination
is of no significance. It's significant because people spend a
lot of time remembering and imagining. We just don't have much
data on which to base futher development of the model. I don't
understand why you think the development of the memory and
imagination part of the PCT model would attract people who are
interested in "real behavior". The evidence we have is that
memory and imagination contribute little if anything to explaining
the observed variance in the real behaviors we have modelled.
My own personal experience is that I am behaving _least_ when
I am remembering or imagining. When I am imagining, for example,
I am usually sitting down doing nothing (other than controlling
my posture). When I am most active (such as when I am playing
raquetball, which seems to me like a real behavior) I am not
doing much remembering and imagining at all (though I am doing
some). I have no doubt that remembering and imagining are
very important aspects of the control model -- especially when
we are trying to understand humans -- so I think it's great that
you want to work on it. But I think there is more than enough of
use in PCT for anyone interested in "real behavior" that comes from
understanding the fact that the "real behavior" they are seeing is
the control of perceptual variables; and that to understand what
the real behavior is that they are seeing then have to know how to
determine what variables are being controlled.
Rick, I might be mistaken, but I would think that the main thrust
of any memory experiment would be to see _how_ what we have in
memory effects what (reference level) our perception is in fact
"tracking". Is it real or imagined, or some combination. How
does this affect the various levels? If I have "imagined"
relationships, does that effect a certain CV differently
then an "imagined" event? I think it's important for _me_ to
move in this direction _if_ I can. I'm gonna give it a helluva
shot
That's certainly another aspect of memory that could be studied.
Any ideas about how to test it? When you ask "is it real or
imagined?" I presume you are asking about the controlled perception;
the reference is always "real" since it is always what it is: a
specification for input. All your questions about this are interesting.
We already know the answers to some of these questions in terms
of the model; for example, if the controlled perception is actually
imagined then the hierarchy will think things are OK when they are
not; if the controlled (imagined) perception matters in terms of
intrinsic perceptions (for example, you imagine you are drinking
the water from a mirage lake) then you'll feel the unfortunate
result; continuing thirst.
Best
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/