A very intriguing TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/gero_miesenboeck.html
About half way through a control loop pops up and things start to get very PCT. The experiments with fruit flies and odours are reminiscent of the model of Random walk chemotaxis. Might it be that light is triggering reorganization in these engineered flies?
Best wishes,
Oliver Schauman
Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London.
[From Rick Marken (2011.01.15.0910)]
A very intriguing TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talk/gero_miesenboeck.html
About half way through a control loop pops up and things start to get very
PCT.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. I see nothing that is particularly PCT
about his diagrams. Among the most important problems; the "Actor" is
S-R: inputs (feedback and context) produce outputs (Actions); the
source of the "context" is mysterious,it's source is neither the Actor
not the Environment; the same is true for the "Reinforcement signal"
from the Critic. The most important thing missing (from a PCT
perspective) is a reference signal and a perceptual function in the
actor and something showing that the perceptual function turns some
aspect of the environment into a perceptual signal that is controlled
relative to the reference. The diagram is just a mess.
The experiments with fruit flies and odours are reminiscent of the
model of Random walk chemotaxis. �Might it be �that light is triggering
reorganization in these engineered flies?
Actually, they strike me as more like a biologically high tech version
of operant brain stimulation studies. It's amazing to me that this
level of technical sophistication can be dedicated to research that is
based on a behavioral model that is so simple-minded. Calling certain
cells "critics" because radio activation of those cells contingent on
certain behaviors (crossing the center portion of the runway) prevents
the appearance of those behaviors doesn't make the results any more
significant (to me) than the finding that you can keep a rat from
grooming itself (or whatever) by stimulating a particular part of the
hypothalamus contingent on that behavior. From a PCT perspective, this
research tells us very about how behavior works; in particular, it
tells us nothing about the role of the stimulated cells in behavior
(perceptual, reference or output).
What I think this video does show us is the importance of marketing in
science. Clearly, Gero knows how to make his work seem important. So
good for him. I think we do have something to learn from him;-)
Best
Rick
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Oliver Schauman <oliver.s@telia.com> wrote:
Best wishes,
Oliver Schauman
Institute of Psychiatry, King�s College London.
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Oliver Schauman (2011.01.15.1730)]
Interesting insight! Your critique does make sense to me, but I am inclined
to be a bit more optimistic about this type of research. At the very least,
it provides an opportunity to challenge the S-R model. The diagram is
presumably full of unknowns because it assumes the wrong things. A PCT model
would probably look simpler and provide a better match for what is
happening. To me it is better to say why PCT is better than why SR is bad.
Best wishes,
Oliver
[From Rick Marken (2011.01.15.0910)]
A very intriguing TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talk/gero_miesenboeck.html
About half way through a control loop pops up and things start to get very
PCT.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. I see nothing that is particularly PCT
about his diagrams. Among the most important problems; the "Actor" is
S-R: inputs (feedback and context) produce outputs (Actions); the
source of the "context" is mysterious,it's source is neither the Actor
not the Environment; the same is true for the "Reinforcement signal"
from the Critic. The most important thing missing (from a PCT
perspective) is a reference signal and a perceptual function in the
actor and something showing that the perceptual function turns some
aspect of the environment into a perceptual signal that is controlled
relative to the reference. The diagram is just a mess.
The experiments with fruit flies and odours are reminiscent of the
model of Random walk chemotaxis. �Might it be �that light is triggering
reorganization in these engineered flies?
Actually, they strike me as more like a biologically high tech version
of operant brain stimulation studies. It's amazing to me that this
level of technical sophistication can be dedicated to research that is
based on a behavioral model that is so simple-minded. Calling certain
cells "critics" because radio activation of those cells contingent on
certain behaviors (crossing the center portion of the runway) prevents
the appearance of those behaviors doesn't make the results any more
significant (to me) than the finding that you can keep a rat from
grooming itself (or whatever) by stimulating a particular part of the
hypothalamus contingent on that behavior. From a PCT perspective, this
research tells us very about how behavior works; in particular, it
tells us nothing about the role of the stimulated cells in behavior
(perceptual, reference or output).
What I think this video does show us is the importance of marketing in
science. Clearly, Gero knows how to make his work seem important. So
good for him. I think we do have something to learn from him;-)
Best
Rick
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Oliver Schauman <oliver.s@telia.com> wrote:
Best wishes,
Oliver Schauman
Institute of Psychiatry, King�s College London.
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (2011.01.15.1900)]
Oliver Schauman (2011.01.15.1730)--
Interesting insight! Your critique does make sense to me, but I am inclined
to be a bit more optimistic about this type of research. At the very least,
it provides an opportunity to challenge the S-R model.
I'm glad your optimistic about this work. I agree that it is
technically very impressive. But I don't see how this work challenges
the S-R model (I prefer to call it the causal model of behavior) or
what if reveals about the nature of the controlling done by organisms
(flies in this case). I'm not interested in dismissing people's work
just to be difficult or whatever. I really just don't see how this
work increases our understanding of control. If you could explain why
you are optimistic about this work I'd really be interested in hearing
about it. But actually work like this makes me kind of pessimistic;
it's very technically impressive, it includes a diagram that shows a
closed loop and it's getting a lot of attention. So I think it diverts
attention from helping us understand what PCT says is important about
behavior: which is that it is purposeful and organized around the
control of perceptual representations of different aspects of the
organism's environment.
So if you can help me be optimistic I'd appreciate it.
Best
Rick
The diagram is
presumably full of unknowns because it assumes the wrong things. A PCT model
would probably look simpler and provide a better match for what is
happening. To me it is better to say why PCT is better than why SR is bad.Best wishes,
Oliver[From Rick Marken (2011.01.15.0910)]
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Oliver Schauman <oliver.s@telia.com> > wrote:
A very intriguing TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talk/gero_miesenboeck.html
About half way through a control loop pops up and things start to get very
PCT.I'm afraid I have to disagree. I see nothing that is particularly PCT
about his diagrams. Among the most important problems; the "Actor" is
S-R: inputs (feedback and context) produce outputs (Actions); the
source of the "context" is mysterious,it's source is neither the Actor
not the Environment; the same is true for the "Reinforcement signal"
from the Critic. The most important thing missing (from a PCT
perspective) is a reference signal and a perceptual function in the
actor and something showing that the perceptual function turns some
aspect of the environment into a perceptual signal that is controlled
relative to the reference. The diagram is just a mess.The experiments with fruit flies and odours are reminiscent of the
model of Random walk chemotaxis. �Might it be �that light is triggering
reorganization in these engineered flies?Actually, they strike me as more like a biologically high tech version
of operant brain stimulation studies. It's amazing to me that this
level of technical sophistication can be dedicated to research that is
based on a behavioral model that is so simple-minded. Calling certain
cells "critics" because radio activation of those cells contingent on
certain behaviors (crossing the center portion of the runway) prevents
the appearance of those behaviors doesn't make the results any more
significant (to me) than the finding that you can keep a rat from
grooming itself (or whatever) by stimulating a particular part of the
hypothalamus contingent on that behavior. From a PCT perspective, this
research tells us very about how behavior works; in particular, it
tells us nothing about the role of the stimulated cells in behavior
(perceptual, reference or output).What I think this video does show us is the importance of marketing in
science. Clearly, Gero knows how to make his work seem important. So
good for him. I think we do have something to learn from him;-)Best
Rick
Best wishes,
Oliver Schauman
Institute of Psychiatry, King�s College London.
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
A very intriguing TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/gero_miesenboeck.html
[From Rick Marken (2011.01.16.1020)]
Martin Taylor (2011.01.15.23.11)--
A very intriguing TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/gero_miesenboeck.html
I get a "404 page not found" error with this link.
It works for me. Try again. Maybe it was down the last time you tried.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Abbott (2011.01.16.1320)]
[Martin Taylor 2011.01.15.23.11]
A very intriguing TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/gero_miesenboeck.html
MT: I get a “404 page not found” error with this link.
It works for me. Perhaps you tried the link while some server was down.
Bruce A.
[From Oliver Schauman (2011.01.16)]
Rick Marken (2011.01.15.1900)
Oliver Schauman (2011.01.15.1730)--
Interesting insight! Your critique does make sense to me, but I am
inclined
to be a bit more optimistic about this type of research. At the very
least,
it provides an opportunity to challenge the S-R model.
I'm glad your optimistic about this work. I agree that it is
technically very impressive. But I don't see how this work challenges
the S-R model (I prefer to call it the causal model of behavior) or
what if reveals about the nature of the controlling done by organisms
(flies in this case). I'm not interested in dismissing people's work
just to be difficult or whatever. I really just don't see how this
work increases our understanding of control. If you could explain why
you are optimistic about this work I'd really be interested in hearing
about it. But actually work like this makes me kind of pessimistic;
it's very technically impressive, it includes a diagram that shows a
closed loop and it's getting a lot of attention. So I think it diverts
attention from helping us understand what PCT says is important about
behavior: which is that it is purposeful and organized around the
control of perceptual representations of different aspects of the
organism's environment.
Why I am optimistic might be due to a whole number of reasons. It may be
because of sheer ignorance.
In my ignorance I think however that, although Prof. Mieseb�eck is talking
about purposeful behaviours, actors, critics and reinforcement signals,
which has nothing to do with PCT, I also think he is talking about control
without understanding it. The critic is essentially about comparison and
generation of an error signal. Making choices involves a hierarchy and the
green cells and mushroom bodies may just be a representation of that. The
model essentially involves something changing in the environment which
creates an error in a bunch of cells that feed into a motor area. When the
model is thought about like this, many of Miesenb�eck's boxes become
obsolete. The whole notion of a critic sending instructions for actions
becomes sort of overcomplicated.
Finally, striving for a mechanistic and scientific model of behaviour is
something that is far from self-evident within psychology. Functional models
can be tested against one another vague psychological concepts cannot.
BW,
Oliver
The diagram is
presumably full of unknowns because it assumes the wrong things. A PCT
model
would probably look simpler and provide a better match for what is
happening. To me it is better to say why PCT is better than why SR is bad.Best wishes,
Oliver[From Rick Marken (2011.01.15.0910)]
A very intriguing TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talk/gero_miesenboeck.html
About half way through a control loop pops up and things start to get
very
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Oliver Schauman <oliver.s@telia.com> > wrote:
PCT.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. I see nothing that is particularly PCT
about his diagrams. Among the most important problems; the "Actor" is
S-R: inputs (feedback and context) produce outputs (Actions); the
source of the "context" is mysterious,it's source is neither the Actor
not the Environment; the same is true for the "Reinforcement signal"
from the Critic. The most important thing missing (from a PCT
perspective) is a reference signal and a perceptual function in the
actor and something showing that the perceptual function turns some
aspect of the environment into a perceptual signal that is controlled
relative to the reference. The diagram is just a mess.The experiments with fruit flies and odours are reminiscent of the
model of Random walk chemotaxis. �Might it be �that light is triggering
reorganization in these engineered flies?Actually, they strike me as more like a biologically high tech version
of operant brain stimulation studies. It's amazing to me that this
level of technical sophistication can be dedicated to research that is
based on a behavioral model that is so simple-minded. Calling certain
cells "critics" because radio activation of those cells contingent on
certain behaviors (crossing the center portion of the runway) prevents
the appearance of those behaviors doesn't make the results any more
significant (to me) than the finding that you can keep a rat from
grooming itself (or whatever) by stimulating a particular part of the
hypothalamus contingent on that behavior. From a PCT perspective, this
research tells us very about how behavior works; in particular, it
tells us nothing about the role of the stimulated cells in behavior
(perceptual, reference or output).What I think this video does show us is the importance of marketing in
science. Clearly, Gero knows how to make his work seem important. So
good for him. I think we do have something to learn from him;-)Best
Rick
Best wishes,
Oliver Schauman
Institute of Psychiatry, King�s College London.
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com