[From Rick Marken (950211.1700)]
Cliff Joslyn (950210.1513) --
Rick, thanks for the plug, and the poem!
You're welcome, Cliff. Thank you for the tips about touring the URL.
I'll start waxing up the surfboard and hitting the Pricipia Cybernetica
waves next week, blithly ignoring Oded Maler's (950209) advice that I
not "surf outside the CSG-L neighborhood". I'll try to be more careful
about where I park my woody and do my California dreamin'.
Regarding Oded's (950209) question about Arbib's definition of control:
What's wrong here?
Bill Powers (950211.0835 MST) just explained what's wrong. Thanks
for boring me right back, Bill;-)
Lars Christian Smith (950211 18:00 CET) --
1. (Your number 1.) Control versus cause and effect. I am glad you are
not going to pursue this, because I think you would be beating a dying
horse.
Rumors of the death of this horse have been greatly exaggerated.
What is happening in psychology (I think) is that the cause-and-effect
model of man is being replaced or has been replaced by the
algorithmic model of man.
The "algorithmic model of man" is the cognitive version of the cause-
and-effect model. It is as far from a closed-loop control of input model
as is the behaviorist model that it so hautily replaced.
The epistemological error of explaining man in terms of classical
physics is being replaced by the epistemological error of explaining
him (or her, as you would say in the U.S.) in terms of information
processing.
Replace "epistemological error" with "factual error" and I agree
completely.
3. Formal, quantitative research on the characteristics of a simple
control loop. Could you elaborate?
Once we know we are dealing with a control phenomenon (so we
know what perceptual variable is under control) we need standard
methods of getting at some of the important parameters of control --
integration factors, transport lags, gain; the nitty-gritty suff. Bill
Powers has been doing some of this lately in connection with the analysis
of some copious amounts of data collected by Martin Taylor.
5. Interacting control systems. Great! Where can I read about Tom
Bourbon's work?
One of Tom's papers is in the PCT issue of American Behavioral Scientist.
Another is in the "Volitional Action" book edited by Wayne Hershberger.
6. Applied PCT. Where are the so far best descriptions and analyses
of "the method of levels"?
The only one I know of starts on p.41 of Powers' LCS II.
Marc ? (950210) --
I find it difficult to understand how most people in this group
espouse one theory (set of values)
I don't think PCT is a set of values; it is a scientific theory, ie. an
explanation of observed relationships between variables.
and there perception and reference levels dictate another causing
contrary behavior, and I bet the people are not even aware of it.
Could you please try to make us aware of what you are talking about?
Perhaps an example would help.
We all seem to agree ( I think
) that our perceptions and values
help create our reality
) that our perceptions and valuesI would say that our perceptions ARE our reality and that values
are perceptions that are part of that reality.
trying to influence people is NOT the crime.
Boy, that's good news;-) If not, I'd have a rap sheet a mile long.
Closing yourself down to INQUIRY by others is the crime.
Well, maybe not a crime, but closing oneself down to inquiry would
certainly not be in the spirit of this list. Does it seem that we are
closing ourselves down to inquiry by others? It seems to me like we
are BEGGING for inquiry by others. Have I missed something?
If you are not influenceable, why have the conversation.
Good point.
We need to respect other peoples right for the way they have
constructed there world, and like Ed Ford, we need to try an align
and integrate PCT into the real world rather then the other way
around.
I don't understand what you are trying to get at here. PCT is a scientific
theory of a ubiquitous, real world phenomenon -- control, also known
as purposive behavior. We are making every effort to align the PCT
model with the real world (as revealed by scientific observation of
purposive behavior); doing the opposite -- trying to align the real world
with the theory -- is called scientific fraud. We try to avoid doing that.
Susan Schweers (950210) --
Whoa, what have we here?
Welcome to the scientific revolution zone;-)
You guys just went public
Actually, we've been on UseNet for several years; we recently changed
the name of our newsgroup from bit.listserv.csg-l (the last four letters
stand for Control Systems Group-List) to something that gives a better
idea of what we are about: bit.sci.purposive-behavior. This group is
dedicated to discussion of a model of the purposive behavior of living
(and non-living) systems. The model is called "perceptual control
theory" (PCT) because 1) it is based on the recognition that purposive
behavior IS control -- the process of maintaining variables in intended
states and 2) it shows that purposive behavior is the control of
perceptual variables.
A long introduction to this discussion group is posted around the first
of the month. I don't have a copy but I think it might be a good idea for
the net god (that would be Dr. Gary Cziko, son of Zeus) to post it now. From
our perspective we just changed the name of the newsgroup but from
the perspective of those looking at UseNet there is a new newsgroup in
town and we should let newcomers know what it's about.
Best
Rick