From Greg Williams (931029)
Avery Andrews 931029.1507
My reading of the `motor schema' concept, in the Wickens text that Greg
quotes (I haven't yet consulted the book itself) and other
places that I have encountered the idea, is that it stops just short of
proclaiming that 'motor schemata' are perceptual targets for the
consequences of actions. Very unfortunate.
I think it could be very FORTUNATE for PCT -- perhaps an appropriate place
to begin building a bridge. It appears, perhaps, that (1) some nonPCTers
recognize the importance of specifying outcomes, rather than outputs, and
(2) they are looking for models to accomplish this. HPCT is one such model.
Before coming upon the Wickens piece, I was convinced (by certain PCTers)
that the nonPCT idea of motor programs/schemata was monolithic -- ALWAYS
"specification of outputs." Bizzi does seem to say this, but apparently not
all others do. I wouldn't have suspected that from past net postings by the
net's certified expert on psychology (who just happens to have an ax to
grind).
I am slowly learning to go to the original sources and not to generalize
about nonPCT ideas solely on the basis of claims about those ideas made
by PCTers. I recall that William Bateson read the Bible (not atheists'
comments on the Bible) to his children at breakfast each day "so they
wouldn't grow up to be IGNORANT atheists." I'm working on not being an
ignorant PCTer, and will keep the net informed of my progress in the same
way as Bateson kept his boys informed: via quotes, rather than unsupported
assertions. Of course, since the authors of those quotes are still around,
as opposed to the authors of the Bible, it is possible to ask them to flesh
out their ideas so that they are clearer. I intend to do that BEFORE I rush
in where Rick Marken doesn't fear to tread.
As ever,
Greg