From [Marc Abrams (2004.05.09.1338)]
When ECAC's was formed, I thought the focus was going to be on the
connection between control and complexity. Instead it turned into a
discussion about complexity and PCT. The two simply don't mix. The dogma
displayed by both Powers and Marken time and time again seem to
reinforce the notion that they are not open to new ideas about how the
mechanism's of control might actually work. They are not interested in
exploring any of the possibilities and they are not interested in
discussing them or looking at research that might support it. PCT is a
very specific set of ideas on not only how control
Works but a specific set of rules for the mechanism's involved. There is
no room for any 'adjustments' and no interest in new ideas.
John Anderson came and went without a whisper and that is unfortunate.
No one has made any comments on the Llinas paper that shows a number of
things that are the antithesis of PCT thought, yet are physiological
_facts_ (non-continuous motor control, chaos). I'm not saying Llinas is
infallible, I'm suggesting that it might be worth discussing and looking
into as well as looking at Milton's work that Dick Robertson posted and
others have in the past, including Peter Small, instead of cutting this
stuff off at the knees.
Has anyone read the reference from Peter from Freeman?
It seems to me that Peter has a number of issues with PCT, and not
necessarily with the concept of control & behavior. PCT is _not_ the
only way control can be applied too behavior. As long as Powers demands
that the details of PCT be adhered too, his theme of behavior and
control is lost in the muddle of trying to get an unworkable hierarchy
and other 'unimportant' (at least according to Bruce Gregory and the
genius of Powers) aspects of PCT (no factual memory model, no emotion
_model_) Please, don't tell me about what Powers _says_ about emotion
and memory. I want to see it in a _working_ model, and until I do his
word is just that, his word. It ain't science. The PCT model and diagram
is fine but provides no details about how the model operates and as the
BossMan has said, the devil is in the details.
I _love_ the PCT model. I have my own ideas about how the mechanism's
operate to provide that control. I have no argument with the basic model
and Powers' two keen insights. The fact that our reference conditions
are internal, and the need to focus on the input, not the output.
With those two ideas you can write many fascinating just-so stories
_after_ the fact. You just can't use HPCT to predict what might happen
in the future, and you can't even use to describe what might happen in
the future, because we don't really know how we come to our perceptions
and cognition, so right now the PCT model is very good for telling after
the fact just so stories. I think there is more to PCT than that, but
your not going to get any where near anything else until you begin to
understand the 'unnecessary' details of how the model actually works
with an integrated emotion and memory component, and seems to me that
CSGnet is unwilling or incapable of discussing the possible details and
that is unfortunate.
Maybe after a bit of time banging his head against the wall Martin
Taylor will realize his arguments are falling on deaf ears. Rick
concedes there might be something there (with chaos) but again, is
really not 'important' to PCT.
Marc
How much longer you can continue to call PCT a science in the face of
new physiological evidence is beyond me
Considering how often throughout history even intelligent people have
been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people who
are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something
different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.
Being smart is what keeps some people from being intelligent.
Thomas Sowell
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 1:04 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: perceptions as attractor basins[From Rick Marken (2004.05.09.1000)]
> Martin Taylor (2004.05.09.10.15)--
>
>> Bill Powers (2004.05.09.0430 MST)
>
>> I think the crux of the matter here is whether we are
talking merely
>> about the behavior of a perceptual variable whose
existence is taken
>> for granted, or about the processes by which one
perceptual variable
>> is generated as a function of other variables: the signals, or the
>> transfer
>> functions. It seems to me that in these discussions, particularly
>> those of
>> Peter Small, this distinction is blurred almost out of existence.
>
> It's a distinction that is easy to lose. So far, I'm talking only
> about the behaviour of a variable, which might be perceptual.But the behavior of the perceptual (and other) signals is
explained quite well by control theory. Of course, the most
important thing, I think, about the dynamic behavior of the
perceptual signal is that it follows, to a close
approximation, temporal variations in the reference signal.
I don't see what the notion of dynamic attractors can
contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of the
perceptual (or any other variables) in a control that goes
beyond this.I think there _might_ be something dynamic attractor theory
can contribute to our understanding of the functions that
generates one perceptual variable as a function of others -
the perceptual function. But I think the behavior of
perceptual variables themselves is pretty well handled by PCT.Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400