[From Rick Marken (930907.2100)]
Michael Fehling (930907 10:42 AM PDT) says:
>I am developing some hypotheses about why this
>important work has been so widely ignored.
Avery Andrews (at what must be 930908.1025 not 930809.1025; Australia's
weird but not THAT weird) replies.
This is a very interesting topic.
Very interesting indeed...
One of its more depressing chapters in
it is the misrepresentation of PCT by Turvey and various of of his
associates, which to my mind, borders on willful distortion.
Well said. The Fowler and Turvey paper ("Skill acquisition...", In G.
Stelmach (Ed.) Information processing in motor control and learning. NY:
Academic Press, 1978) must rank as one of the truly historic examples
of making a fool of oneself in print.
Of course, the reason why PCT was never been delt with seriously by
more than a handful of behavioral scientists is because Bill Powers
showed that:
(1) o = g-1(d);
what people "do" (their outputs or "behavior", o) depends on UNSENSED
disturbances, d, to controlled perceptions. Behavioral science in general
(and psychology in particular) is built on the assumption that
(2) o = g(s);
what people "do" depends on what they sense,s. The whole edifice of
"scientific method" in psychology is built on this assumption. Some
people (including a coterie of otherwise reasonable Canadians who
occasionaly contribute to this Network) are certain that to believe
anything other than equation (2) is to renounce reason and logic.
Once a person grasps equation (1) he or she either runs to the
comfort of mother psychology or falls into the pit of PCT.
Here's hoping that you fall into the pit, Michael. It seems like
hell when you're looking in from up there but it's actually Maui
down here.
Michael Fehling (930907 10:42 AM PDT) got it right when he said:
The methods of cognitive science largely replay
methodological ideas of behaviorists
And this is true for a very good reason; the methods in ALL areas of
scientific psychology are based on a cause-effect model of behavior
(some version of equation 2). Unfortunately, behavior is not a cause-
effect process -- it just LOOKS like it under some conditions (like
when we can see disturbance, d, and output, o and assume that the
relationship between them exists because the organism is reacting
to the sensed value of the disturbance). Behavior is control -- which
is why we see the apparent magic described by equation (1) (people
reacting precisely to what cannot be perceived); it occurs because of
the real magic of purposeful behavior, which is control of perception
(p=r).
Lewis LaRue (93.09.04 @ 10:20 EDT)
First comment: what is the point of the story?
I don't think there is any way to tell now. The point of the story was
in the storyteller -- the story itself has no point; it's just a bunch
of marks on parchment. The storyteller surely had some point -- that is
a purpose -- in telling the story; probably several -- being a hierarchical
control system and all.
First query to the group: would you describe this as controlling your
perception of the story so as to bring it into adjustment with the
reference signals your culture has given you about the pious
righteousness of scripture?
I'd agree with that statement -- although I don't believe that my culture
gave me reference signals. My reference signals probably developed as
part of my efforts to cope with other control systems (people, mainly),
their artifacts and the world in which they all exist.
Second comment: who was the birth mother?
I don't think PCT can help you on that one. My gut says that it was the
mom who said "don't cut" but I've met some mothers (and fathers) who
might be more than happy to have 1/2 a kid. Maybe the real mom was the
one who said "cut" because she was only after a good meal anyway. Maybe
neither was the real mom (I'm prepared to rule out the possibility
that BOTH were the real mom).
Second query to this group: can we talk about an "inference" as just
another "perception"?
Yes. All experience -- all we "know" -- is (in theory) perceptual
signals which are the outputs of perceptual functions.
I hope that my discussion of King Solomon's judgment has some
interest
It was fun, though I'm really pretty poor at Biblical interpretation.
For example, I first read the story of Jacob and Esau when I was in my
second year of graduate school (I'm was obviously "Biblically challenged"
as a child) ;it's a great story but I always seem to construct
the wrong meaning from it. To me, its a story of a spoiled, lying
wimp mamma's boy (Jacob) who screws up his hard working, fair minded
brother (Esau) by stealing his inhertance and bugging out. After
getting rich by screwing up some other people Jacob decides to come
back to his home, fully expecting that Esau will try to kill him.
Instead, Esau welcomes the wimp creep back with open arms -- at which
point I nearly break into tears. And then I hear that Jacob is the
big "hero" of the story. Go figure.
Best
Rick