[From Chris Cherpas (981015.1215 PT)]
Chris Cherpas (981014.1315 PT)--
I don't
see that not having a model of awareness, at least one
exhibiting anywhere near the rigor as models of controlled
perceptions, entails a "breakdown" so much as a gap
in an otherwise potentially well-modeled theory.
Bill Powers (981014.0555 MDT)--
I think the point here is that the control model seems to
work perfectly well without giving awareness any function
in the model...
This is indeed the main point, and I was taking it for granted
for the dubious sake of noting that the other (assumed crucial)
parts of PCT have been, or potentially are, "well-modeled,"
unlike awareness.
There can hardly be said to be a "gap" in the theory when
it accounts for all but one percent of the variance in the data.
Agreed. I can see the ambiguity allowed by my syntax
now (a syntactic gap revealing a synaptic gap?), with the
unintended interpretation being something to the effect
that a "causal" gap exists in PCT, as in the cartoon
about the theory that explains everything, but depends
on a black box labeled, "miracle happens here."
No, I meant that the actual byte count of programs
written to model awareness was a small, possibly
equal to the cardinality of the empty set.
Best regards,
cc