[From Bruce Abbott (950725.0945 EST)]
Gary Cziko 950725.0524 GMT --
At the recently concluded CSG annual meeting, it was decided to set up
another list (network) for those PCTers primarily interested in the
APPLICATION of Perceptual Control Theory.
Does this mean that the old list would be devoted purely to PCT science
(empirical testing; theoretical development, etc.?). That is, was the
proposal to create separate lists for basic and applied areas?
Does the perceived need for an applications list indicate that many
conferees were NOT interested in the basic science stuff and would rather
not have to deal with it? If there's so much to say about applications as
to require a separate list, why have there been so few posts about them?
I'm just trying to understand what went into this decision.
Regards,
Bruce
[From Dick Robertson] (950726.1833CDT)
Yeah, I think Bruce Abbott has a good point there. I often spend a
certain amount of time reviewing and then deleting "hightech" stuff
that I find hard to follow, but when I take the time to figure it out
as best I can, it's generally worth it. I still get many of my own
thoughts about applications from my gleanings of the basic stuff.
HPCT is too new and too skeletal yet, I think, to go for applications
independent of the basics. I'm still trying to get a deeper grasp of
the basics and those conditioning models etc are where the science
has been developing at present. I would worry if there was an
applied list that Rick and Bill (etc) weren't looking at any more...I
don't believe applied people work without theory, only with covert,
and either rigorous or sloppy, depending upon how much discipline is
coming from curmudgeons like Rick. Best, everyone ...wish I had been
at the conf. Dick