"Once Around the Loop" expanded.

[From Dag Forssell (2005.10.17 20:20 PST}]

I have just posted an update of "Once Around the Loop" at

http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/files/other_pct.html fifth item.

The additions are marked with a line in the margin on pages 2 and 4.

Layout opened up a bit and expanded to four pages.

The idea came to me some weeks ago that there was more to say about action, so I have drafted some comments. I suppose they deal with the "so what?" question.

Comments welcome as to style, wording, content, validity -- whatever.

Best, Dag

From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.17.2341)

Dag, you did a wonderful job of describing a control process. Rick usually does a wonderful job of modeling control processes, and Bill Powers does a wonderful job of designing them.

A question I have is this; does what you describe Dag, and Rick models and Bill designs have anything to do with humans?

Since you were nice enough to post this notice maybe you and I can have a chat Dag. I have some questions about your paper and maybe with your help to clarify a few points I will have a better understanding of how you came to some of these conclusions.

In the paper you say;

“The thing that sets control in living things apart from other conceptions of control is the internal reference signal, …”

I thought that this was one of the things. I thought the other was the control of input rather than output. Am I mistaken here?

Dag: “The reference signal (r), a neural signal, specifies the state to which the perceptual signal (p), another neural signal, must be brought.”

Me: How is this specification of state made? When you say ‘signal’, exactly how do you feel neurons communicate this state. That is, what is it about the ‘signal’ that specifies the state?

Dag: “High-level reference signals involve memory, as when you recall a certain position, move or experience and in essence think:…”

Me: How high? That is, at what level do you believe memory starts, and why at that particular level? Have we any data that would suggest a ‘reference’ versus a ‘perceptual’ ‘signal’ actually exists. If so, where may I see it? If not, what makes you believe this to be true?

Dag: “As we develop very high level mental concepts such as love, honesty
and science, we specify that we want to experience that too. Some low-level reference signals, however, have nothing to do with our mental development and memory, but seem specified by our genetic makeup.”

Me: How are these high level concepts developed and what is responsible for specifying those experiences? How do you know what does and does not have to do with our ‘mental’ development? From a PCT perspective what does mental development mean?

Dag: “By engineering convention, the reference signal is assigned a plus-sign
and the perceptual signal a minus-sign.”

Me: Yes, If you were engineering a robot I imagine this might be useful. But what does this have to do with a human’s physiology?

I could go on, but I think this is a good beginning.

Contrary to the feelings of probably most on CSGnet these are questions I sincerely hold and would like answered.

It seems many claims are made in this paper without any illustrations of why Dag believes these things to be true. I know Dag personally and he is as honest and bright as they come, so I am extremely interested in learning the inference processing he used to come to the conclusions he did.

Unfortunately, I probably will not see any answers to my questions and that is unfortunate for us all because I believe we all have a chance of learning something if we would be willing to expose our beliefs to others and be open to new and credible data.

And finally, you may ignore me but my questions will not go away. You can bet your bottom dollar many others have similar questions and how you answer them or don’t will go along way in determining whether people think you are full of bull or if you have a legitimate set of ideas.

Regards,

Marc

In a message dated 10/17/2005 11:22:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, team@FORSSELLTRANS.COM writes:

···

[From Dag Forssell (2005.10.17 20:20 PST}]

I have just posted an update of “Once Around the Loop” at

http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/files/other_pct.html fifth item.

The additions are marked with a line in the margin on pages 2 and 4.

Layout opened up a bit and expanded to four pages.

The idea came to me some weeks ago that there was more to say about
action, so I have drafted some comments. I suppose they deal with the
“so what?” question.

Comments welcome as to style, wording, content, validity – whatever.

Best, Dag

From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.18.0201)]

This is a clarifying follow-up to my last post on this subject.

I don’t expect to get any answers to my post from Dag because I don’t think any exist and that is and was my point.

No, it was not to rip PCT or to denigrate Dag’s effort.

If no hard data exists and all we are going on are inferences we have then don’t you think it might be a good idea to explore where these inferences are coming from? I don’t know about you, but I’m curious as hell.

Bill has said the hierarchy came from his intuition. Fine, I’d like to know the inferential ladder he used to get from here to there. That is, what basic set of ‘facts’ did he see and use and then what theories did he apply to that data to arrive at his conclusions.

Why is this undiscussable? If it is not undiscussable why are alternative intuitions and inferences about possible structure not discussed?

If PCT is about our inferences about control and human behavior, and control and human behavior is PCT, then why can’t we engage in discussions utilizing the inferences of control and behavior from any number of folks and still call it PCT?

Is PCT a brand name? I ask sincerely, what exactly is being protected here and why?

Frankly, you should be welcoming folks with all kinds of ideas about control and behavior onto this site and let the best set ideas with the most convincing empirical data eventually come out the winner.

But we are an extremely long way away from determining that, so why not increase our chances and not decrease them by listening to other voices and critically looking at the inference paths we have all taken to get here.

Again, you can ignore me but my questions will not go away.

Regards,

Marc

Hello, Dag --

  Good. The amplifications are useful, especially the one at the end. I'm sure that I didn't notice all the changes, but it reads very well the third time through, so I think you're finished with it!

Bill