[Paul Stokes (980209.2108 GMT)]
Where do the purposes we pursue come from?
Best wishes,
Paul
Paul A. STOKES
Department of Sociology
University College Dublin
IRELAND
___________________________________________________
paul.stokes@ucd.ie
+353-1-7067002
In a message dated 98-02-09 17:36:11 EST, you write:
i.kurtzer (980209)
[Paul Stokes (980209.2108 GMT)]
>Where do the purposes we pursue come from?
from the reference signal, which in a hierarchy would be the output of the
level above.
see, Perceptual Organization of Behavior:A Hierarchical Control Model of
Coordinated Action. in Mind Readings or original source
Journal of Experiemental Psychology:Human Preception and Performance, 12,
267-276, 1986. R.S. Marken
very nice, and uses canonical heirarchical model to simulate human performance
for each condition.
i.
Email problems circumvented!
[Paul Stokes (980210.0919 GMT)]
i.kurtzer (980209)
>Where do the purposes we pursue come from?
from the reference signal, which in a hierarchy would be the output
of the level above.
I was hoping I would not get the obvious progressio ad absurdam that
is the consequence of this type of reasoning. My question pointed to
the *ultimate* source of purposes - ie where the buck stops and there
is no 'out clause' to a higher level. Your answer begs the question.
Can we try again?
Paul
see, Perceptual Organization of Behavior:A Hierarchical Control
Model of Coordinated Action. in Mind Readings or original source
Journal of Experiemental Psychology:Human Preception and
Performance, 12, 267-276, 1986. R.S. Marken
i.kurtzer (980210.2300)
[Paul Stokes (980210.0919 GMT)]
> i.kurtzer (980209)
>> >Where do the purposes we pursue come from?
>> from the reference signal, which in a hierarchy would be the output
>> of the level above.
>I was hoping I would not get the obvious progressio ad absurdam that
>is the consequence of this type of reasoning. My question pointed to
>the *ultimate* source of purposes - ie where the buck stops and there
>is no 'out clause' to a higher level. Your answer begs the question.
Could you briefly expand on why my answer inherited all those Latin nastyisms?
And/or expand on what type of answer would you find suitable.
i.
[Martin Taylor 980225 0:40]
Paul Stokes (980210.0919 GMT) to i kurtzer
>Where do the purposes we pursue come from?
from the reference signal, which in a hierarchy would be the output
of the level above.I was hoping I would not get the obvious progressio ad absurdam that
is the consequence of this type of reasoning. My question pointed to
the *ultimate* source of purposes - ie where the buck stops and there
is no 'out clause' to a higher level. Your answer begs the question.
A negative feedback loop with a perceptual input function that sends its
signal directly to the output function would act like a control system
that was given a zero reference level. It is quite conceivable that the
top-level systems are like that.
But it's not necessarily true. All I intend is to show that the buck
_can_ stop without violating the standard HPCT concept or structure.
There are lots of other possibilities, none testable so far as I know,
in our present state of understanding.
Martin
[From Bill Powers (980213.0556 MST)]
Paul Stokes (980210.0919 GMT)--
Where do the purposes we pursue come from?
Isaac:
from the reference signal, which in a hierarchy would be the output
of the level above.
I was hoping I would not get the obvious progressio ad absurdam that
is the consequence of this type of reasoning. My question pointed to
the *ultimate* source of purposes - ie where the buck stops and there
is no 'out clause' to a higher level.
First, can we agree to translate "purpose" as "reference signal?" This is
the PCT proposal for explaining what a purpose _is_. It is something that
specifies a desired or intended or wished-for perceived result.
The hierarchy in PCT is a proposal that reference signals are the outputs
of higher-level control systems. In any organism, there is a finite number
of levels of organization, so there is a finite (and small) number of
levels of purposes. There is no infinite regress; you stop when there is no
more to be explained.
This leaves the problem of the highest level of purposes, whatever it is.
Where do they come from? Since by definition there are no more levels above
the highest level, the origin can't be the output of a still-higher level
of control system. So what possibilities does that leave?
1. Genetics. The top-level reference settings could be inherited, which would
make them products of evolution.
2. Reorganization. The top-level reference settings could be randomly
selected by the reorganizing system, which is concerned only with the state
of the system itself rather than its environment.
3. Recordings of past perceptions at the highest level. This would say that
we seek to reproduce the most frequently-experienced perceptions at the
highest level -- for example, the system concepts we most frequently
recognize in the society around us.
4. Zero. That is, the reference signals in the highest level of control
systems are simply missing, which makes them equivalent to a setting of
zero. This means that the highest control systems act to bring any
perceptions at the highest level to a value of zero. Of course since the
perceptual input functions at the highest level will be very complex in
their meanings if not their computational organization, a "zero" signal
might have a definite meaning in terms of more detailed perceptions. The
"zero" perception in a joint-angle control system does not mean "no joint
angle" -- it means a joint angle of zero, which could correspond to full
extension or full flexion, depending on where you locate the zero angle.
Those are the main possibilities I see. There are probably others, and we
don't necessarily have to pick just one of them. Of two things we can be
sure: there is no infinite regress, and the origins of purposes lie in
actual neural and physical processes.
Oh, I left one out: free will. I suppose this will raise some hackles, but
considering what we know today, it really is a possibility. Naturally,
since I don't believe in any supernatural phenomena, I'm confident that
free will (if it exists) will one day be connected to physics, but to deny
that there seems to be evidence for free will is just evidence of a
petrified mind.
Do you have any other suggestions?
Best,
Bill P.
[Dave Spence (960912.0805)]
Rick Marken (960911.2150)--
Biologists have been able to figure out the purposes
(functions) of so many biological structures for
the same reason that psycholgists have been able
to figure out the causes of so many behaviors:
because so many people have been willing to
believe Nobel laureates and other important
sounding trendy types who study biological functions as
though they had purposes (functions) and who study
behavior as though it had causes.
What is "figured out" is use full supposition (usually packaged in
academic verbiage and stated in an "accepted" manner, to sound like fact.)
Bill points out that this is the researchers best guess.
We certainly should consider the source. Each researcher in each
discipline (even a guy digging a ditch) works with several
perceptual biases which will alter the concept he/she formulates.
These biases are a result of genetic, social, educational, and
personal factors. Individual notions of how the world is, why do
research, feelings about that day, or opinions about the other
researchers cal all have small changes in the reasoning process
as well as the perception of the system being studied.
Collectively they may effect greatly the final opinions of the
researcher. Essentially PCN is not only interested in the
"object"/"artifact"/"observed system", but in the environmental
factors, including the researchers internal and external factors,
that lead to the researchers notions of "function"/"use"/"purpose"/"intention".
An artifacts perceived purpose is that function which the observer
recorded as a particular subsystems(immediate environment) use of
the artifact. This may not be its "true function", nor even its intended
use( in the case of a human manufactured item).
Dave S.