[From Rick Marken (940406.1800)]
Bill Leach (940406.19:05 EST) --
Rick; There is even some chance that you might be able to put away that
.357 Magnum now... and yes, I did "miss the point". What you are telling
me does make sense.
Bill. I am really sorry if you thought I came out firing away. I guess
I've really got to learn to tone down my prose or start sprinkling my
posts more liberally with ;-)'s. I feel particularly bad in this case be-
cause your post on perception in control systems (to which I responded
with "Half a loop" -- note the allusion to Winnie the Pooh?) was
excellent, especially considering the fact that you found out about PCT,
what, four months ago? Anyway, I latched on to what I called a "problem"
for me with your post mainly for the sake of the "information in perception"
argument -- which didn't really involve you. So if I was firing a Magnum,
I was not aiming at you.
All of these discussions really help me understand things better and,
if I already understand them to my satisfaction, they still help me
figure out better ways to express what I think I understand. Your post
"stimulated" me to come up with a way to express my problem with conventional
psychologies that I think was actually rather good (if I do say so myself).
I think the good idea was to realize that most conventional psychologies give
"special status" to the causal link between perception and response that
actually DOES exist as part of a negative feedback loop. I didn't mention
it in that post but there are also a few psychologies that give special
status to the other part of the loop -- the causal link between response
and perception. A psychologist named M. M. Taylor put great emphasis on
this link, as did J. J. Gibson (a statistical pattern seems to
be emerging -- double letter psychologists prefer caused input models
of behavior). Of course, although both these causal links exist in the
loop, they are not significant in and of themselves becuase they do
not operate in and of themselves (in the loop). When it's all hooked
together we get behavior: the control of perception -- as I know you know :-).
Best
Rick
<[Bill Leach 940406.22:05 EST(EDT)]
[Rick Marken (940406.1800)]
Rick, maybe it was I that failed to use a smiley. I am just enjoying the
humorous approach that have been taken in many of the recent postings.
Indeed, I have laughed long and hard at a few of them and marvelled at
the ingenious incorporation of principles.
No, I did not consider you to be abusing me or anything of that sort. I
really do appreciate the effort to "keep me on the straight and narrow".
I honestly believe that this IS the path to understanding the operation
of the human mind (not to mention all other living things). As soon as
one leaves the "single control loop" drawing, it is deceptively easy to
make gross errors (and I'm sure you haven't seen my last 
).
As I said, I felt that you were missunderstanding what I was saying about
the disturbance's effect on perception and I still think that you did do
that but I understand why. I had somehow gotten it into my head that
essentially what you were saying is that the closed loop equation did not
apply as I understand it. That was obviously an error in my thinking and
at least now, it is not likely that I will ever repeat that particular
error again. I promise to try to use new errors from now on.
I was also missing the point because I did not care about the
"information in disturbance issue" that was "raging" (with respect to my
disturbance points).
Other than talking about disturbances for purposes of testing or
theoritical discussion, I recognize that disturbances are significant
only when they affect "quality of control". I say it that way because,
even when control is "satisfactory" it is possible that the "gross energy
consumption" causes a "feeling" of becoming tired and that may result in
a change in the reference(s).
We'll keep plugging and you keep "shooting" as required
//////////////////////////////////////////
/ /
/ -bill /
/ bleach@bix.com 71330.2621@cis.com /
/ ARS KB7LX@KB7LX.ampr.org 44.74.1.74 /
/ /
//////////////////////////////////////////
<Martin Taylor 940407 09:50>
Rick Marken (940406.1800)
Bill. I am really sorry if you thought I came out firing away. ...
So if I was firing a Magnum, I was not aiming at you.
I think the good idea was to realize that most conventional psychologies give
"special status" to the causal link between perception and response that
actually DOES exist as part of a negative feedback loop. I didn't mention
it in that post but there are also a few psychologies that give special
status to the other part of the loop -- the causal link between response
and perception. A psychologist named M. M. Taylor put great emphasis on
this link, as did J. J. Gibson (a statistical pattern seems to
be emerging -- double letter psychologists prefer caused input models
of behavior).
"It's all perception." I have no idea why Rick maintains his perception
of me in the face of mountains of data that would lead most people to
a quite different perception. It is the action of the loop AS A WHOLE
that matters. But the action of the loop as a whole CAN be analyzed
by looking at the functions of its parts and how they interrelate.
That notion seems to terrify Officer Marken.
Of course, although both these causal links exist in the
loop, they are not significant in and of themselves becuase they do
not operate in and of themselves (in the loop). When it's all hooked
together we get behavior: the control of perception -- as I know you know :-).
I am AT LEAST as strong as Officer Marken in supporting this position,
and always have been, as Officer Marken ought to know, since we have
been engaged in discussions on the topic for well over a year.
The main problem I have in engaging in discussions publicly on CSG-L
is that Officer Marken persists only in trying to lock me into a cell
that has a view only of part of the control loop. I cannot work with
only this view, and sensible discussion from that cell is impossible to
continue. I therefore have decided to refrain from trying, in his presence.
I simply do not understand the reason for this "Persistence of Vision."
Martin
).