From [Marc Abrams (2004.12.23.1858)]
[From Bill Powers (2004.12.23.0820 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (20041223.0756)–
PCT seems to me to be a theory of robotics pressed into service as a
theory of human experience.
Funny way to put it. “Pressed into service” sounds like a makeshift,
desperation move, whereas “pressing” control theory “into service” in the
early days of cybernetics was probably the greatest step forward in
understanding living systems ever made. I thought you agreed with that at
one point. What changed your mind?
Wasn’t the entire cybernetics movement about how control or ‘negative feedback’ contributed to our understanding of living systems? As I recall from George Richardson’s book; Feedback Thought in the Social Sciences, you took a divergent path from cybernetics by introducing a number of factors that only the engineering ‘servo-mechanism’ crowd adhered to and you had a few objections to some of the cybernetic notions as well.
At one point I agreed with most of what you said and thought. I have since revised my opinion based on much research I have done. I know that you think it a virtue to remain in the same place for as long as you can stand the heat, but I prefer to look elsewhere when I find I can’t quite solve a problem a certain way. Each to his own.
This is not to take away from your contribution, but like everything else on this world. Things evolve, and so will your theory eventually.
Not only is consciousness not explained in PCT, it is a real annoyance.
Speak for yourself; I’m rather glad it [consciousness] exists, though I try >not to say
annoying things about it. There wouldn’t be much experience without it.
However, the functioning of brain and body which constitute the vehicle
employed by consciousness is explainable without it, just as we can
understand (but not design) a car without understanding the driver.
Sorry pal, not fully. Much of what YOU are interested in can be explained without consciousness. NOT what I, Bruce and most psychologists are interested in though. Graham Brown in 1911 observed that an animal could still walk with a normal gait, that is, organized movement, even though they were deafferented. Sensory input was required ONLY to modulate for the variable environment it encountered.
You have a mistaken understanding of how our nervous systems and brain work. I will not attempt to bore you with any details, but our consciousness evolved, (or was created, take your pick) from a need to be able to navigate in a variable environment. Our 'brain can be divided into a ‘new’ brain and ‘old’ brain. You should have listened a bit closer to Glasser on this point. The old brain, and the one you happen to focus in on, is responsible for all of our internal needs. But it does not work alone. It works in conjunction with our ‘new’ brain. That is, relatively speaking, the cortex is only a few million years old.
So most, but not all of our control systems reside in the ‘old’ brain.
Consciousness provides a control system with a number of important and vital tools. Control systems do not ‘think’ or ‘care’ about anything, but if I were to design a control system and if I wanted to make a control system as efficient as I could, I would add a few things to ‘help’ the control system along. Some ‘supporting’ mechanism’s if you will.
I believe consciousness’ is one of those tools. I believe emotions is another one of those tools.
Consciousness provides the ability of a controlling organism to plan. That is, to try and PREDICT what might happen a minute from now, an hour from now and 6 years from now. Bruce Gregory has tried to make this point several times without much luck. What this is, is an attempt to reduce the variability of the input. Since our control systems do not ‘like’ error, one way of minimizing it is to reduce the variability of input.
The second way that consciousness helps the control process is by providing a large number, and high degree’s of freedom in resolving any error. This amounts to giving a control system enough ‘freedom’ to be able to choose a viable way of correcting error. That is, enough ‘learned’ ‘behaviors’ to deal with most situations. Of course ‘behavior’ here represents thoughts and imagination as well.
So all living_ animals have some consciousness. Humans, with our advanced neo-cortex have a bit more than others.
Without these capabilities, MOBILE life would be impossible. So consciousness, although not necessary to maintain life, people have lived for years in a coma, certainly makes for a different life’s experience.
So talking about the brain and not talking about consciousness, leaves out, depending on who is doing the talking, anywhere for 50 to 75% of what most BEHAVIORAL people are interested in, and what they are interested in is WHY we do what we do. NOT how this all occurs at the molecular level.
What you have done is simply replace the environment (behaviorism) with a control system. The questions as to WHY either one would actually cause behavior is still a mystery to you. I think I have a potential answer.
At least one i can try and explore. Trying to understand human behavior at the psychophysical level with a PCT model would be like trying to build a log cabin with toothpicks. It’s probably theoretically possible, but I’m not really interested in the attempt. I need to use something a bit larger for my project. Something at a higher level of abstraction than what PCT currently affords. is this a knock on PCT? I don’t see it that way.
Do microbiologists dis ecologists because of the different scales of interest?
The hierarchy works perfectly well without it (which is why I call it an
epiphenomenon – it is a real phenomenon, but it does no heavy lifting in
the model – in fact, it does no lifting at all). The same can be said
for memory and emotions. A good robot does perfectly well without either,
thank you.
The hierarchy doesn’t work at all in the real world of human control. As a model it works just fine. Humans are NOT models, and they are NOT computers and electronic circuits. The sooner you realize this the sooner you might be able to contribute something more then just rhetoric.
If consciousness directs reorganization where it is needed, as I have
proposed, then the hierarchy would not work nearly as well without it, if
it could get itself organized at all. As to “heavy lifting,” are you
proposing that consciousness (rather then neural control systems) is
responsible for perception, comparison, action. memory, and emotion?
What is a ‘neural control system’? What do you think ‘consciousness’ is?
I’m sorry Bill, your way out there. You have no real concept of how our nervous systems and brain works.
The latter two, memory and emotion, would probably make a robot >function
much better if we put them into it rather than leaving them out. Look what
including memory did for cruise controls, which wouldn’t work at all
without it. Emotions have to do with self- and species-preservation and
avoidance of injury, so I presume a robot with them would do better than a
robot without them.
‘Emotions’ have to do with a great deal more than that. Emotions and feelings initiate all controlled processes, not perceptions. Perceptions can and do initiate feelings and emotions.
A little something your model does not consider.
I’m sorry for the confusion that I caused by not realizing the
difference between the problems we were trying to solve. I will do my
best to see that that does not happen in the future.
I hadn’t noticed that you are trying to solve (as opposed to cause) a
problem.
As the great Will Rogers once said; “When you find yourself in hole the first thing you should consider doing is to stop the digging”.
I think Bruce has tried to take this approach. I know I have on CSGnet. It has not worked. You have your ideas and that seems to be that.
I’m not certain when or why you closed off all real contact with the outside world, and by this I mean the day you stopped listening to others and started digging in and trying to sell a line of goods, but it hasn’t worked and it won’t work.
What is ironic about all this is that the reason it won’t work is something you should know very well. Control systems, NEED to have large degree’s of freedom in order to resolve error. Translated, when I try to solve a problem using your hierarchy, and I can’t, I try other solutions that I think might work better. It’s only natural, and when and if I find something more comfortable and to my liking I will accept or reject the others on the capability of reducing the error I perceive. As they say; “Use whatever works best for you”.
At least you haven’t said what it is. Does Hebbian learning, which
has to do with the “strength” of active synapses in “cell assemblies” being
affected by other neural signals, have something to do with consciousness?
Who cares? Hebbian learning is NOT about ‘cell assemblies’. It’s not about how something is done. it is about why something is done.
What problem does that model solve that PCT doesn’t solve?
Hebbian learning adjusts the network’s weights such that its output reflects its familiarity with an input. The more probable an input, the larger the output will become (on average). Unfortunately, plain Hebbian learning continually strengthens its weights without bound (unless the input data is properly normalized). There are only a few applications for plain Hebbian learning, however, almost every unsupervised and competitive learning procedures can be considered Hebbian in nature.
I believe that Bruce is addressing the ‘predictive’ nature of learning.
As I said in my previous post about learning. Prediction is IMPERATIVE to our survival. Not pinpoint prediction, but ‘in-the-ballpark’.
What do you think the main thrust of Science is? One aspect is ‘descriptive’. The more alluring and more ‘prestigious’ goes to the ones who can come up with PREDICTIVE models. Control tells us why this is so, IF you have the capacity to look at a level of control higher then that of a ‘neural circuit’.
And a final note; Bill, you unfortunately view people like me and Bruce as your ‘enemies’. I say unfortunately because we are some of your truest supporters. Your real enemies abandoned you along time ago. Your enemies are the ones who refuse to tell you the truth as they see it and won’t bother wasting their time trying to help.
It is unfortunate because you really believe ‘friends’ don’t ‘hurt’ other friends. But how do you tell a friend he has bad breath without offending him?
It is also unfortunate because I think I have a great deal to contribute and I’m going to do it, with or without your support. I would much prefer to be working with you than not.
I have read everything you have published, and most things more than once. If I did not feel in my heart that I was not doing what you envisioned and hoped for 40 years ago then I would have, like so many others abandoned any hope and moved on. You can say this is my final attempt to get your interest and ear.
Bill. I don’t know if any of my ideas are any better than yours. But your ideas are NOT any better than mine, and that is the point. My focus on control is different than yours.
I hope you will think about this.
Marc
Bruce,
I was going to send this to CSGnet but decided to pass it by you first. I don’t want to involve you and as I said originally, you and I would agree when to go ‘public’ with this.
Marc
From [Marc Abrams (2004.12.23.1858)]
[From Bill Powers (2004.12.23.0820 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (20041223.0756)–
PCT seems to me to be a theory of robotics pressed into service as a
theory of human experience.
Funny way to put it. “Pressed into service” sounds like a makeshift,
desperation move, whereas “pressing” control theory “into service” in the
early days of cybernetics was probably the greatest step forward in
understanding living systems ever made. I thought you agreed with that at
one point. What changed your mind?
Wasn’t the entire cybernetics movement about how control or ‘negative feedback’ contributed to our understanding of living systems? As I recall from George Richardson’s book; Feedback Thought in Social Science, you took a divergent path from cybernetics by introducing a number of factors that only the engineering ‘servo-mechanism’ crowd adhered to and you had a few objections to some of the cybernetic notions as well.
At one point I agreed with most of what you said and thought. I have since revised my opinion based on much research I have done. I know that you think it a virtue to remain in the same place for as long as you can stand the heat, but I prefer to look elsewhere when I find I can’t quite solve a problem a certain way. Each to his own.
This is not to take away from your contribution, but like everything else on this world. Things evolve, and so will your theory
Not only is consciousness not explained in PCT, it is a real annoyance.
Speak for yourself; I’m rather glad it [consciousness] exists, though I try >not to say
annoying things about it. There wouldn’t be much experience without it.
However, the functioning of brain and body which constitute the vehicle
employed by consciousness is explainable without it, just as we can
understand (but not design) a car without understanding the driver.
Sorry pal, not fully. Much of what YOU are interested in can be explained without consciousness. NOT what I, Bruce and most psychologists are interested in. Graham Brown in 1911 observed that an animal could still walk with a normal gait, that is, organized movement, even though they were deafferented. Sensory input was required ONLY to modulate for the variable environment.
You have a mistaken understanding of how our nervous systems and brain work. I will not attempt to bore you with any details, but our consciousness evolved, (or was created, take your pick) from a need to be able to navigate in a variable environment. Our 'brain can be divided into a ‘new’ brain and ‘old’ brain. You should have listened a bit closer to Glasser on this point. The old brain, and the one you happen to focus in on, is responsible for all of our internal needs. But it does not work alone. It works in conjunction with our ‘new’ brain. That is, relatively speaking, the cortex is only a few million years old.
So most, but not all of our control systems reside in the ‘old’ brain.
Consciousness provides a control system with a number of important and vital tools. Control systems do not ‘think’ or ‘care’ about anything, but if were to design a control system and I wanted to make a control system as efficient as I could I would add a few things to ‘help’ the control system out.
I believe consciousness’ is one of those tools. I believe emotions is another one of those tools.
Consciousness provides the ability of a controlling organism to plan. That is, to try and PREDICT what might happen a minute from now, an hour from now and 6 years from now. Bruce Gregory has tried to make this point several times without much luck. What this is an attempt to reduce the variability of the input. Since our control systems do not ‘like’ error, one way of minimizing it is to reduce the variability of input.
The second way the consciousness helps is by providing a large number, and high degree’s of freedom in resolving any error. This amounts to giving a control system enough ‘freedom’ to be able to choose a viable way of correcting error.
so all living_ animals have some consciousness. We, with our advanced neo-cortex have a bit more than others.
Without these capabilities, MOBILE life would be impossible. So consciousness, although not necessary to maintain life, people have lived for years in a coma, certainly makes for a different life’s experience.
So talking about the brain and not talking about consciousness, leaves out, depending on who is doing the talking, anywhere for 50 to 75% of what most BEHAVIORAL people are interested in, and that is WHY we do what we do.
What you have done is simply replace the environment (behaviorism) with a control system. The questions as to WHY either one would actually cause behavior is still a mystery to you. I think I have an answer.
The hierarchy works perfectly well without it (which is why I call it an
epiphenomenon – it is a real phenomenon, but it does no heavy lifting in
the model – in fact, it does no lifting at all). The same can be said
for memory and emotions. A good robot does perfectly well without either,
thank you.
The hierarchy doesn’t work at all. As a model it works just fine. You can’t translate that into the real world because the real world does not operate like that. The sooner you realize this the sooner you might be able to contribute something more then just rhetoric.
If consciousness directs reorganization where it is needed, as I have
proposed, then the hierarchy would not work nearly as well without it, if
it could get itself organized at all. As to “heavy lifting,” are you
proposing that consciousness (rather then neural control systems) is
responsible for perception, comparison, action. memory, and emotion?
What is a ‘neural control system’? What do you think ‘consciousness’ is?
I’m sorry Bill, your way out there. You have no real concept of how our nervous system and brain works.
The latter two, memory and emotion, would probably make a robot >function
much better if we put them into it rather than leaving them out. Look what
including memory did for cruise controls, which wouldn’t work at all
without it. Emotions have to do with self- and species-preservation and
avoidance of injury, so I presume a robot with them would do better than a
robot without them.
‘Emotions’ have to do with a great deal more than that. Emotions and feelings initiate all controlled processes, not perceptions. Perceptions can and do initiate feelings and emotions.
A little something your model does not consider.
I’m sorry for the confusion that I caused by not realizing the
difference between the problems we were trying to solve. I will do my
best to see that that does not happen in the future.
I hadn’t noticed that you are trying to solve (as opposed to cause) a
problem.
As the great Will Rogers once said; “When you find yourself in hole the first thing you should consider doing is to stop digging”.
I think Bruce has tried to take this approach. I know I have on CSGnet. It has not worked. You have your ideas and that seems to be that.
I’m not certain when or why you closed off all real contact with the outside world, and by this I mean the day you stopped listening to others and started digging in and trying to sell a line of goods. but it hasn’t worked and it won’t work.
What is ironic about all this is that the reason it won’t work is something you should know very well. Control systems, NEED to have large degree’s of freedom in order to resolve error. Translated, when I try to solve a problem using your hierarchy, and I can’t, I try other solutions that I think might work better. It’s only natural, and when and if I find something more comfortable and to my liking I will accept or reject the others on the capability of reducing the error I perceive. As they say; “Use whatever works for you”.
At least you haven’t said what it is. Does Hebbian learning, which
has to do with the “strength” of active synapses in “cell assemblies” being
affected by other neural signals, have something to do with consciousness?
Who cares? Hebbian learning is NOT about ‘cell assemblies’. It’s not about how something is done. it is about why something is done.
What problem does that model solve that PCT doesn’t solve?
Hebbian learning adjusts the network’s weights such that its output reflects its familiarity with an input. The more probable an input, the larger the output will become (on average). Unfortunately, plain Hebbian learning continually strengthens its weights without bound (unless the input data is properly normalized). There are only a few applications for plain Hebbian learning, however, almost every unsupervised and competitive learning procedures can be considered Hebbian in nature.
I believe that Bruce is addressing the ‘predictive’ nature of learning.
Marc