[From Bill Powers (951208.1340 MST)]
Bruce Abbott (951208.1505 EST) --
But you have forgotten to mention that there is ANOTHER disturbance
at work in your system:
. . .
What I am calling the "disturbance" is the NET effect of ALL
disturbances, including whatever in your system is causing qc to
leak away to zero in the absence of sustained input from some
source.
OK, you have defined qc, in effect, as the fullness of the gut. The rate
of reinforcement causes qc to increase at a proportional rate, and there
is leakage from the gut which we can assume to be either constant or
proportional to the contents. The disturbance in my equations now adds
to or subtracts from the rate of reinforcement, affecting the rate at
which the gut fills.
How about setting up the control equations using these assumptions and
solving them for qc and o for various values of d? This will be a nice
exercise, and I'll stand by to help if needed.
···
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Abbott (591208.1955 EST)]
Bill Powers (951208.1340 MST)
OK, you have defined qc, in effect, as the fullness of the gut. The rate
of reinforcement causes qc to increase at a proportional rate, and there
is leakage from the gut which we can assume to be either constant or
proportional to the contents. The disturbance in my equations now adds
to or subtracts from the rate of reinforcement, affecting the rate at
which the gut fills.
Yep.
How about setting up the control equations using these assumptions and
solving them for qc and o for various values of d? This will be a nice
exercise, and I'll stand by to help if needed.
You're on! I'll give it some thought tomorrow and see where it leads.
Meanwhile, what about that labeling problem?
Regards,
Bruce
[From Bill Powers (951208.2015 MST)]
Bruce Abbott (591208.1955 EST) --
You're on! I'll give it some thought tomorrow and see where it
leads. Meanwhile, what about that labeling problem?
Good.
As to the labelling problem, there isn't one as long as you mean a
controlled perception when you say "pressing" or "eating," and realize
that the actions which bring these perceptions about can't properly be
called pressing or eating. What you see, as an external observer, are
the actions. To see the consequences as pressing or eating, you have to
apply a perceptual function of your own to what you see going on. If
it's the same one the rat is using, good. If not, you're
misinterpreting.
I know what you're going to say: "operant." One day you'll realize that
explaining the operant is the prime problem that conventional psychology
(of any kind) has failed to solve. Maybe you realize it already. How am
I supposed to know, unless once in a while to talk as if you do?
···
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Bill P.