[From Bill Powers (2004.12.20.1640 MST)]
Richard Thurman (2004.12.20.2100)--
Any ideas about how an individual can use memory in the control process
would be greatly appreciated. (And any ideas on how to build such a
process in code would be incredibly appreciated.)
Start with the REASON for saying that reference signals come, or can come,
from memory. The phenomenon I was trying to model was a very simple and
common one. We do something, we like the result, and we want to "do it
again." What is required in order to get the same result again?
The main requirement is that you have to remember what happened: that
memory is what you mean by "it" in the phrase "do it again." Then, of
course, you have to know when what IS happening matches the memory. In
short, you need a control system for controlling "it" and the memory has to
serve as a reference signal for the desired state of "it". This does not
mean repeating the action that created "it" the first time, though you may
try that. In general, generating the same act as before will not create the
same result as before. Remember disturbances -- that is why you need a
control system and not just an S-R association.
A car's cruise control works exactly this way. When you push the "set"
button, you're recording the value of a perceptual signal in memory. The
(electrical) perceptual signal represents the current speed of the car,
which is "it." To do "it" again -- make the car go at that speed -- you
have to record the speed in memory and use it as a reference signal against
which current perceptions of speed are compared. When, after stopping in
traffic, you are out on the open road again and press "resume," that
retrieves the last recorded memory of speed and plays it back as a
reference signal. And that, of course, causes the car's speed to come to
that value and stay there whether going uphill or down, in a headwind or a
tailwind -- with an accuracy depending on the gain of the control system.
I think you can write the code for that.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1220.1940)]
[From Bill Powers (2004.12.20.1640 MST)]
The main requirement is that you have to remember what happened: that
memory is what you mean by "it" in the phrase "do it again." Then, of
course, you have to know when what IS happening matches the memory. In
short, you need a control system for controlling "it" and the memory
has to
serve as a reference signal for the desired state of "it".
This is an example of the lack of a model of associative memory. PCT
provides no model of the process by which you "remember what happened"
as far as I have been able to determine. Nor does it provide a model of
how this memory becomes a reference signal. Without such models, this
explanation seems to be little more than hand waving.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
[From Bill Powers (2004.12.20.1805 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2004.1220.1940) –
This is an example of the lack
of a model of associative memory. PCT
provides no model of the process by which you “remember what
happened”
as far as I have been able to determine. Nor does it provide a model
of
how this memory becomes a reference signal. Without such models,
this
explanation seems to be little more than hand waving.
No, it’s an attempt to sketch in a model of a fairly obvious phenomenon.
As to HOW human associative memory works, I don’t believe anyone knows or
has a working model. There have been, of course electronic associative
memories, though they’re not much used any more. Read B:CP starting at
the bottom of page 211 for a discussion of “the principle of
addressing” which leads up to the idea of associative memory and
goes on for six or seven pages. I make it clear what I know and don’t
know, and limit the final model to ideas that don’t depend on how
perceptions are stored and retrieved. That they must be stored and
received by some means seems hard to deny.
And why is this only an “example” of the lack of a model of
associative memory? That might imply that there is some huge looming
problem about associative memory of which this is only the tip of the
iceberg.
One thing needs to be pointed out here. If someone did come up with a
verifiable model of human associative memory, it would not replace PCT:
it would become part of PCT. That’s the case for most of the missing
components one can identify in this model. There are many places in the
HPCT model where we know that some function is required, even though we
can’t now describe how that function is carried out in the brain. Is it
your position that discovering how, say, configuration perception works
would invalidate the HPCT model in which configuration control is only
sketched in?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1220.2217)]
Bill Powers (2004.12.20.1805 MST)
No, it's an attempt to sketch in a model of a fairly obvious phenomenon. As to HOW human associative memory works, I don't believe anyone knows or has a working model. There have been, of course electronic associative memories, though they're not much used any more. Read B:CP starting at the bottom of page 211 for a discussion of "the principle of addressing" which leads up to the idea of associative memory and goes on for six or seven pages. I make it clear what I know and don't know, and limit the final model to ideas that don't depend on how perceptions are stored and retrieved. That they must be stored and received by some means seems hard to deny.
It may be hard to believe, but the question of memory has not been ignored for the past thirty years.
And why is this only an "example" of the lack of a model of associative memory? That might imply that there is some huge looming problem about associative memory of which this is only the tip of the iceberg.
A model of human experience that leaves out memory might be viewed by some as having a real problem.
One thing needs to be pointed out here. If someone did come up with a verifiable model of human associative memory, it would not replace PCT: it would become part of PCT. That's the case for most of the missing components one can identify in this model.
Well I guess that says it all, doesn't it? On the other hand, PCT might become a part of a verifiable model of human associative memory. After all you only need a model of memory that includes negative feedback. And difficult though it may be to believe, such models exist.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1221.0712)]
Bill Powers (2004.12.20.1805 MST)
My last post was inappropriate. Please ignore it.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
[From Bill Powers (2004.12.21.0742 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2004.1221.0712)]
My last post was inappropriate. Please ignore it.
Deleted (along with my reply) and done.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2004.12.21.0830)]
Bruce Gregory (2004.1221.0712)]
My last post was inappropriate. Please ignore it.
How is that post (whichever it was) different from all your other posts?
RSM
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1221.1143)]
Rick Marken (2004.12.21.0830)
Bruce Gregory (2004.1221.0712)]
My last post was inappropriate. Please ignore it.
How is that post (whichever it was) different from all your other
posts?
Your wit leaves me breathless.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
[From Rick Marken (2004.12.21.0915)]
Bruce Gregory (2004.1221.1143)--
Rick Marken (2004.12.21.0830)
How is that post (whichever it was) different from all your other
posts?
Your wit leaves me breathless.
Your breath, sir, poured out synesthetically in the screeds that you post,
leaves me witless;-)
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1221.1231)]
Rick Marken (2004.12.21.0915)]
Your breath, sir, poured out synesthetically in the screeds that you
post,
leaves me witless;-)
I knew there had to be an explanation.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
Rick and Bruce,
Since I have learned much from both of you over the years, I find this
dialogue is disappointing.
David Wolsk
···
On Dec 21, 2004, at 9:15 AM, Richard Marken wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2004.12.21.0915)]
Bruce Gregory (2004.1221.1143)--
Rick Marken (2004.12.21.0830)
How is that post (whichever it was) different from all your other
posts?
Your wit leaves me breathless.
Your breath, sir, poured out synesthetically in the screeds that you
post,
leaves me witless;-)
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies
of the original message.
Dr. David Wolsk
Associate, Centre for Global Studies
Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Education
University of Victoria, Canada
[From Rick Marken (2004.12.27.1530)]
David Wolsk (Dec 27, 2004 10:24 AM) --
Rick Marken (2004.12.21.0915)--
Bruce Gregory (2004.1221.1143)--
Your wit leaves me breathless.
Your breath, sir, poured out synesthetically in the screeds that you
post, leaves me witless;-)
Rick and Bruce,
Since I have learned much from both of you over the years, I
find this dialogue is disappointing.
Sorry. Couldn't resist. I thought my retort was rather Mercutial, though, as in something Mercutio might have said to one of those Capulet troublemakers. Like Mercutio, I'm a bit Mercurial, I'm afraid (in saying that I now realize why Bill Shakespeare, the other great Bill, gave him that name), especially in response to the taunts of ignorant thugs. So you can think of it as something of a satire on myself.
I've learned quite a bit from Bruce Gregory, too. What have you learned?
RSM
Rick Marken
MindReadings.com
310 729-1400
Rick Marken
MindReadings.com
310 729-1400