Phenomenology and PCT

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.24.1120)]

···

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

AGM: if pct is not phenomenological (in the sense that one can experience the claims it makes, and help the answer with that experience – like Powers’ exercices at the end of each chapter in BCP) then pct is not a good theory.

RM: I don’t think this is what defines a good theory. Phenomenology can be quite misleading. Indeed, it was misleading phenomenology that convinced me that PCT was the right approach to understanding behavior. The misleading phenomenology occurs in the tracking task that Powers used to illustrate the basic facts of control. An example of this tracking task is at http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html.

RM: The phenomenology of this task for most people is that they are moving the mouse in the opposite direction as the cursor in order to keep the cursor on target: It feels like you move the mouse right when the cursor moves to the left of the target and to the left when the cursor moves to the right of the target.

RM:This phenomenology is very compelling but it is not what is actually happening, as can be seen from the correlations shown at the end of the tracking task. If the phenomenology were correct there would be a strong, negative correlation between mouse movements (M) and cursor movements (C). But the correlation between cursor and mouse movements – the C-M correlation n the upper left – is typically quite small and sometimes even positive. Indeed, the better one is at keeping the cursor on target (controlling the position of the C) the smaller the C-M correlation will be. I just did it myself and the C-M correlation was .09.

RM: So phenomenology does not necessarily give accurate picture of what is actually going on with behavior. Indeed, I programmed this demo back in 1979 (on an Apple II) at the college I was working at and had one of my colleagues do it. I then asked him how he thought he was able to keep the cursor on target. Of course, he described the phenomenology as I described it above: he said he moved the game paddle (no mice yet) right (clockwise) when the cursor went left and left (counterclockwise) when the cursor went right. Then I showed him the correlation between cursor and game paddle movements. This shocked him and he got rather upset. That was my first (but obviously not my last) experience of having people react to PCT with anger.

RM: Of course, the PCT model accounts for the behavior in the tracking task perfectly (as see in the demo). And the model also explains why the phenomenology is misleading. It’s because the cursor movement is an input and an output at the same time.

RM: So I would say that the phenomenology of behavior is important as data – something to be explained. But phenomenology is not, in itself, a test of an explanation of behavior. That’s the job of comparing the behavior of a model to the the behavior to be explained.

RM: My colleague and I remained good friends, by the way, despite the irritating demo.

Best

Rick

PS: Note, not one single mention of the power law – except just then;-)

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[Alex_Gomez-Marin]

thanks for your views, rick. phenomenology, upon prepared illusions, doesn’t work at its best. but powers ideas drink from von uexkull, whose insight is from-the-point-of-view of the subject. and pct is compatible with husserl, merleau-ponty, and it would be great to strenghthen bridges with varela, thompson and the enactivists.

···

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

AGM: if pct is not phenomenological (in the sense that one can experience the claims it makes, and help the answer with that experience – like Powers’ exercices at the end of each chapter in BCP) then pct is not a good theory.

RM: I don’t think this is what defines a good theory. Phenomenology can be quite misleading. Indeed, it was misleading phenomenology that convinced me that PCT was the right approach to understanding behavior. The misleading phenomenology occurs in the tracking task that Powers used to illustrate the basic facts of control. An example of this tracking task is at http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html.

RM: The phenomenology of this task for most people is that they are moving the mouse in the opposite direction as the cursor in order to keep the cursor on target: It feels like you move the mouse right when the cursor moves to the left of the target and to the left when the cursor moves to the right of the target.

RM:This phenomenology is very compelling but it is not what is actually happening, as can be seen from the correlations shown at the end of the tracking task. If the phenomenology were correct there would be a strong, negative correlation between mouse movements (M) and cursor movements (C). But the correlation between cursor and mouse movements – the C-M correlation n the upper left – is typically quite small and sometimes even positive. Indeed, the better one is at keeping the cursor on target (controlling the position of the C) the smaller the C-M correlation will be. I just did it myself and the C-M correlation was .09.

RM: So phenomenology does not necessarily give accurate picture of what is actually going on with behavior. Indeed, I programmed this demo back in 1979 (on an Apple II) at the college I was working at and had one of my colleagues do it. I then asked him how he thought he was able to keep the cursor on target. Of course, he described the phenomenology as I described it above: he said he moved the game paddle (no mice yet) right (clockwise) when the cursor went left and left (counterclockwise) when the cursor went right. Then I showed him the correlation between cursor and game paddle movements. This shocked him and he got rather upset. That was my first (but obviously not my last) experience of having people react to PCT with anger.

RM: Of course, the PCT model accounts for the behavior in the tracking task perfectly (as see in the demo). And the model also explains why the phenomenology is misleading. It’s because the cursor movement is an input and an output at the same time.

RM: So I would say that the phenomenology of behavior is important as data – something to be explained. But phenomenology is not, in itself, a test of an explanation of behavior. That’s the job of comparing the behavior of a model to the the behavior to be explained.

RM: My colleague and I remained good friends, by the way, despite the irritating demo.

Best

Rick

PS: Note, not one single mention of the power law – except just then;-)

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[_Boris_Hartman]

The »fact« is that we can conclude what is happening in »reallity« only from perceptions (ours or others). But perceptions are different in different people. If there is »objective reality« out there (the one we can perceive the same) how than »objectively« (that we can see the same) Universe is functioning ? Is there a unique theory ? If something works »objectivelly« it can work right only in one way, because all people perceive it the same.

But we know that is not so. So whose perception can we take for reference that we can say the reality is like that as he says. Is the reference you Alex ? Whatever you perceive and write or say about reality is true ?

How atoms function »objectivelly« ? You went out of your scientific line Alex. It seems that you are trying to be insulting toward Powers,

AGM : but powers ideas drink from von uexkull, whose insight is from-the-point-of-view of the subject. and pct is compatible with husserl, merleau-ponty, and it would be great to strenghthen bridges with varela, thompson and the enactivists.

HB : Is here something wrong ??? What’s wrong with these views of »reality«. Whatever you know about reality is hidden in perception. There is probably »one, the same reality« we are living in but how can we establish that you are the reference for »real reality« ?Â

I don’t see that you know much about Powers and his theory, and I don’t mind if you stick to »Power Law« where you are expert. It’s just one view on reality. But it doesn’t seem that you are scientific about other Themes if you judge about things that you don’t understand much.

You are wrong Alex about where Powers »drink« from. It was mostly Ashby and his »Design for a brain« not whatever »von uexkull« means,. But where did you get this »theory« about where Powers »drunk« his ideas ?? Strengthening bridges with Maturana (Varela is dead for a long time although Maturana was his teacher) and whoever others are, doesn’t improve PCT. PCT is original, special and revolutionary and exceeds all who ever you mentioned.

But all this doesn’t matter. It matters only whether Powers was right or not. Experiences and obervations of many people can prove that. By my oppinion he was right and he explaned in the best way today how nervous system function. You have any better explanation ?

···

From: Alex Gomez-Marin [mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 8:57 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: Richard Marken
Subject: Re: Phenomenology and PCT

thanks for your views, rick. phenomenology, upon prepared illusions, doesn’t work at its best. but powers ideas drink from von uexkull, whose insight is from-the-point-of-view of the subject. and pct is compatible with husserl, merleau-ponty, and it would be great to strenghthen bridges with varela, thompson and the enactivists.

On Wednesday, 24 August 2016, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.24.1120)]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

AGM: if pct is not phenomenological (in the sense that one can experience the claims it makes, and help the answer with that experience – like Powers’ exercices at the end of each chapter in BCP) then pct is not a good theory.

RM: I don’t think this is what defines a good theory. Phenomenology can be quite misleading. Indeed, it was misleading phenomenology that convinced me that PCT was the right approach to understanding behavior. The misleading phenomenology occurs in the tracking task that Powers used to illustrate the basic facts of control. An example of this tracking task is at http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html.

RM: The phenomenology of this task for most people is that they are moving the mouse in the opposite direction as the cursor in order to keep the cursor on target: It feels like you move the mouse right when the cursor moves to the left of the target and to the left when the cursor moves to the right of the target.

RM:This phenomenology is very compelling but it is not what is actually happening, as can be seen from the correlations shown at the end of the tracking task. If the phenomenology were correct there would be a strong, negative correlation between mouse movements (M) and cursor movements ©. But the correlation between cursor and mouse movements – the C-M correlation n the upper left – is typically quite small and sometimes even positive. Indeed, the better one is at keeping the cursor on target (controlling the position of the C) the smaller the C-M correlation will be. I just did it myself and the C-M correlation was .09.

RM: So phenomenology does not necessarily give accurate picture of what is actually going on with behavior. Indeed, I programmed this demo back in 1979 (on an Apple II) at the college I was working at and had one of my colleagues do it. I then asked him how he thought he was able to keep the cursor on target. Of course, he described the phenomenology as I described it above: he said he moved the game paddle (no mice yet) right (clockwise) when the cursor went left and left (counterclockwise) when the cursor went right. Then I showed him the correlation between cursor and game paddle movements. This shocked him and he got rather upset. That was my first (but obviously not my last) experience of having people react to PCT with anger.

RM: Of course, the PCT model accounts for the behavior in the tracking task perfectly (as see in the demo). And the model also explains why the phenomenology is misleading. It’s because the cursor movement is an input and an output at the same time.

RM: So I would say that the phenomenology of behavior is important as data – something to be explained. But phenomenology is not, in itself, a test of an explanation of behavior. That’s the job of comparing the behavior of a model to the the behavior to be explained.

RM: My colleague and I remained good friends, by the way, despite the irritating demo.

Best

Rick

PS: Note, not one single mention of the power law – except just then;-)

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers