From Greg Williams (931022)
Rick Marken (931021.0930)
Coherence comes out of modelling and testing -- not dictionary
definition.
Out of modeling and testing AND consistent interpretation of the
results. The last is where folks can get tangled up in definitional
misunderstandings.
In our discussions with non-PCTer we have made every
effort to clarify the "meaning of terms" -- that's what all the
math, demos, explanation and research is about. Yet nonPCTers
who have listened to these exlanations have left the discussion
anyway. Do they still misunderstand? Do you really think nonPCTers
are having problems because of terminology misunderstandings?
My hypothesis is that at least part of the reason some nonPCTers (in
particular, those who espouse PCT-kosher mathematical models) say "who
cares?" (a phrase you know well!) about PCT rhetoric is that there is
MUTUAL misunderstanding of some of the terms used by each "side." But
it is only an untested hypothesis; Tom Bourbon (see below) and I
propose to look at some empirical evidence bearing on this hypothesis,
not least because I asked for data on this from you and you didn't
provide any.
We have explained our terminology over and over and over. How
difficult can this be? Besides, there are at least two of us (Tom and
I) who are CERTIFIED (with PhDs in experimental psychology)
"understanders" of "the other side". So if we can understand them, why
can't they understand us?
Who said (other than you) that you DO understand "them," your
certification notwithstanding? Tom and I will try to answer this and
related questions on the basis of evidence, rather than personal
opinion.
Greg, I know you just don't want to believe that this is happening.
After all, this is, what, 1993 and there just can't be any more
scientific revolutions because science is all institutionalized and
supported by the government and, besides, everyone's read Kuhn so
everyone's on the lookout for a revolution anyway. Well, I'm
afraid it is a happenin' again -- BIG TIME.
I think the PCT "revolution" COULD happen "BIG TIME," but it certainly
ISN'T right now. It COULD start to happen -- perhaps; the evidence
isn't in yet -- if certain misunderstandings between some PCTers and
some nonPCTers were resolved.
But you go ahead -- keep
lookin' for all those folks who would love PCT if we could just get
the meanings of our terms straightened out; then you can watch
as all the resistence fades and PCT becomes the basis for theory
and research in the life sciences.
I (and I suppose Tom, too) consider our proposed work as possibly
contributing to helping the resistance fade. What have you done lately
in that regard?
I'll wake you for dinner, honey.
I'm wide awake already, thank you, and attempting to work toward the
success of the revolution. Frankly, I sometimes think your notion (a
waking dream?) that you are also contributing to that success is
mighty poor judgement.
Rick Marken (931021.1100)
Gary Cziko (931021.0221 ) quotes Neurobiologist Graham Hoyle
(1913-1985), in Susan Allport's _Explorers of the black box_
(Norton, 1986), p. 57.
" If there's input to the nevous system, fine. It will react to
it. But the nervous system is primarily a device for generating
action spontaneously."
Sounds like the nervous system reacts to inputs (it's S-R) but
primarily it GENERATES outputs. Maybe Graham forgot to mention (becuase
it's so obvious?) that those outputs produce pretty consistent
results in a highly variable enviomnet. I guess what he REALLY meant
is that "the nervous system is primarily a device for controlling
perceptions". He didn;t say it that way, but then he didn't know PCT
terminology, right Greg? Yep, another piece of evidence that life
scientists have understood PCT all along.
Your big problem seems to be that you are so eager to put words into
other folks' mouths to show that they couldn't possibly think anything
similar to what you know is the Truth. Maybe just ONCE you could stop
GUESSING about what nonPCTers mean and try to establish a dialog? You
will probably protest that you have -- for example, with Hans Blom --
but I am unconvinced that you have EVER moderated your confrontational
attitude to a degree where more distortions and miscommunications
aren't the outcomes.
At least, you can see how I might get confused, can't you, Greg?
Yes, I find that pure rationalists almost always get confused, with no
empirical hooks to prevent them from falling off the edge.
I'm probably wrong, of course. This is probably just another case
of misunderstanding.
Instead of speculating, try an empirical investigation. It's called
"doing science." Guaranteed to cure many headaches (and to produce
others, but that's another story).
These people probably mean that activities
are used to regulate (control) perceptual variables -- they just
say it a little differently than I do (like the opposite way).
On what basis do you make this speculation?
Oh, and then they study it a little differently, too -- by looking
at the relationship between perceptual variables and activities
instead of looking for the perceptual variables that a regulated
by activity.
On what basis do you claim this?
But I'm sure that's just more confusion on my part.
Who am I to doubt your introspection?
They are probably testing for controlled variables and using
conventional statistical methods because that's what they're used
to doing.
On what basis do you claim this?
Now I see. Perhaps I could help them understand PCT if I used THEIR
terminology.
Now you're starting to get the message. That "perhaps" can be TESTED!
Try "science" and see!!
So, when I want to say that perceptual variables
ARE CONTROLLED I should say perceptual variables CONTROL.
Try it and see what happens.
You're right, Greg, that's not so hard.
How do you know? You didn't try it.
We should have everyone understanding PCT in no time now.
More speculation. Once a rationalist, always...?!?!
Tom Bourbon [931021.1345]
Thanks for agreeing to collaborate on a "translation" paper! I
sincerely hope that it doesn't result in your being made fun of by
Rick "Who Cares" (not to be confused with "What, Me Worry?") Marken.
I'll start work on the preliminary literature survey next week.
Some additional thoughts about Greg's idea of a questionnaire sent to
selected people in mainstream human factors (anyone with suggestions for
this possible survey, please let us kow):
Ditto.
Rather than (or in addition to) asking for definitions of key words, we
might include simple diagrams of putative control models (some traditional,
some from PCT) and ask direct questions about whether variable X is
"controlled" (yes, no, other - explain); or what will happen to signal Y if
function, signal or variable Z changes by Q times; or can the gain in this
system exceed 1.0 (explain in 25 wors or less).
Excellent idea.
As ever,
Greg