[From Rick Marken (931110.1230)]
Martin Taylor (931110 10:45) --
I said:
...the first step in evaluating the value of a feedforward explanation
of a behavioral phenomenon would be to determine whether or not the
phenomenon involves control. If it DOES involve control then no
feedforward explanation is possible;
Martin replies:
Substitute "is complete" for "is possible." Then I'll agree with you,
and so, I presume, would Hans.
Feedforward does not provide ANY explanation of control. Please explain
what aspect of control is explained by feedforward (planned output).
Your comment could also be taken to mean that you think that a feed-
forward model explains SOME behavior -- just not all of it. But there
has been NO EVIDENCE AT ALL presented that ANY behavior is explained
by a feedforward model (one that generates outputs). This is because
there has been NO EVIDENCE AT ALL presented that there is ANY feed-
forward behavior (that is not a side effect of control) to be explained
by such a model. There MAY be such behaviors (saccades come to mind as
a possibility) but right now all we have are misinformed anecdotes about
people walking in the dark, as though visual variables were the
only ones controlled when walking. Sheeese.
Tom Bourbon (931110.1111) --
I'm going to go turn on the lights, Tom.
Best
Rick