PC learning theory: "reinforcement sampling" question

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
1

[From Chris Cherpas (951116.1047 PT)]
   [re: > Rick Marken (951116.1030)]
     [re: >> Bill Powers (951116.0600 MST)]

BP:

If there's no error to be corrected, why should there be any learning? If a
person isn't bothered by not understanding algebra, why should that lead to
understanding algebra?

RM:

We learn in order to control better (to reduce the ambient error existing
in control systems that are not controlling very well). If we are already
controlling well then there is nothing to learn; no reason to go through the
uncomfortable process of trying to discover as yet unknown approaches to
controlling.

cc:
So what happens the first time somebody tries, let's say,
crack cocaine? Suddenly, there's a very "important" reference
level to maintain. How did the new reference level get there?

This is a bit like the paradox of inquiry: if you already
know about something, why inquire (i.e., just maintain your
reference level), but if you don't know about it, then you
don't even know what to inquire about (i.e., there's no
reference level upon which an error can be based).

Inquiring mind, stoned on theory,
cc

2

<[Bill Leach 951116.22:28 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[Chris Cherpas (951116.1047 PT)]

This is a bit like the paradox of inquiry: if you already
know about something, why inquire (i.e., just maintain your

There is speculation by some that "acquiring knowledge" itself may be an
intrinsic variable. That may be too much of a claim but it probably is
likely that there is some reference "for knowing the world around you".

If one does not like that view then there is always the observations of
others where some totally ignore "new" information that is inconsistant
with their existing knowledge but there are others "that notice". It
seems likely that there is a strong "reference" of some sort for "order"
or consistancy in our worlds.

-bill