[From Rick Marken (931028.1500)]
Bruce Nevin (Thu 931028 14:03:33 EDT) --
I started out
here asking, hm, I wonder how all this applies to language. Then I got
answers like oh, that's easy. You have phoneme detectors, ...
Whoa! was my response. It's a bit more complicated than
that. Look, here are some descriptive facts about language. Now, what
kind of perceptual function(s) would produce phenomena that fit this
description?
We have shown how the PCT model of perception handles (at least, in
principle) all the descriptive facts you mention. You're claim that
"it's a bit more complicated than that" is, as far as I can see, based
on nothing more than linguistic mystique. What facts have you described
that are inconsistent with the PCT model of language perception/control?
Nobody claimed to have the details of the perceptual functions down
pat; that's for research (a LOT of it) to handle. But the basic
organization of the model (as a functional transformation of inputs into
a single, variable output) seems to work just fine. Could you please be
specific about exactly what is wrong with the current PCT model -- given
the observations you have discussed?
I find your observations about language perception no more "challenging"
to the PCT model of perception then the HUGH number of observations
of perceptual phenomena in general.
Maybe that's why I get so irritated at your posts, Bruce. You talk as
though the problems of language perception were the most baffling,
profound or unique ones of all. In fact, all the language perception
phenomena you describe have analogs in non-verbal, non-symbolic,
non- social perception. Language is just a PART of what people do.
There's a big world of perception out there -- and language is just a
teesey weensey little piece of it.
I said:
Language is, indeed, a socially conventionalized set of controlled
perceptions
You say:
Hooray! We agree about that at last. Modelling that is another question.
We have never disagreed on this. What we disagree about is whether
PCT ignores "socially conventionlized" behavior (a claim that you made,
and that is brilliantly denied by Tom Bourbon's research program on multi-
person interaction) and whether there is something "special" about it (I
say there is not -- all that is "special" about socially conventionalized
behavior -- control -- is that other control systems are part of the
control loop).
Best
Rick