resource limitation/cost

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
1

[From Shannon Williams (951220 10:00 CST)]

Martin Taylor 951219 13:20

Is cost created/generated by our internal organization or by the
organization of our environment?

The less smart-ass answer has to be presented from a PCT point of view,
which rather takes away from its relevance to a discussion of reinforcement.

You said: (Martin Taylor 951218 15:00)

        >The cost function I envisage can be seen by analogy. To a
        >person with $2, the "cost" of a $1 item is greater than it
        >is to a person with $10.

        [BTW - notice that your statement does not mention or even
        assume that "cost" is related to "goals" (or to a person's
        internal organization).]

You also said: (Martin Taylor 951219 10:30)

        >I don't think it is in the least unnatural, or suggested
        >by "reinforcement" that it costs you more to give up
        >something of which you have only a little than to give up
        >the same quantity of something of which you have a lot.

        [BTW - Notice again that there is no mention or requirement
        that 'your cost' is related to 'your goals'.]

I could quote most of your post about this subject, but I think that this
is enough. My point is only that Bill replied to you:

Bill Powers (951218.1715 MST)-
        >OK, you've invented a nonlinear cost function. This requires
        >the rat to know how much of the resource is left, as well as
        >how much it is getting,

and you responded:

Martin Taylor 951219 10:30-
        >What does "how much it is getting" (of food pellets) have
        >to do with how much of the resource (energy, time, number of
        >paws...whatever) it has available?

And I reply:
Your whole cost analogy is centered around the concept that if more
resource is available, it costs less to use it. In other words, your
analogy is centered around the environment in which control loops exist.

So the perception of cost (if it is perceived) would be generated
internally and constrained by the environment, just like any other
perception.

It is true that if the environment offers only one path to food, then
you must walk that path in order to get food. But I do not see this
as a constraint. I think that I see it as an option: You have the
option to satisfy your hunger. What gets constrained is the control
loops that for some reason are disturbed when you walk the path.

-Shannon

2

[Martin Taylor 951221 00:25]

Shannon Williams (951220 10:00 CST)

I'm clearly missing something here. I cannot get the connection between
the following, all of which is a direct quote with no omissions from your
message. I mean that I can't see where your comment relates to my
comment to Bill. There doesn't seem to be any connection.
-------------start quote----------
My point is only that Bill replied to you:

Bill Powers (951218.1715 MST)-
        >OK, you've invented a nonlinear cost function. This requires
        >the rat to know how much of the resource is left, as well as
        >how much it is getting,

and you responded:

Martin Taylor 951219 10:30-
        >What does "how much it is getting" (of food pellets) have
        >to do with how much of the resource (energy, time, number of
        >paws...whatever) it has available?

And I reply:
Your whole cost analogy is centered around the concept that if more
resource is available, it costs less to use it. In other words, your
analogy is centered around the environment in which control loops exist.

---------end quote----------------

I see four quite separate things here, and you put them all together as
if they were one. 1. The "reinforcement" such as food pellets. 2. The
resource limitation, such as how many fingers you have to play a chord
on a piano, or how much energy you have after a hard game of volleyball.
3. The organization of the hierarchy, which in a well reorganized
system has aspects that mirror 4. The environment.

I also mentioned that the _perception_ of cost is a different thing than
the cost itself, just as the _perception_ of action is different from
the action itself. That was in response to Bill's comment about the
rat "knowing" ow much of the resource is left. It doesn't have to
"know" how much energy it has left if it feels tired. It just feels
tired. How tired it is isn't in its environment, though it may well be
a perceptual consequence of some aspect of body chemistry that is indeed
in the environment in which control loops exist.

Also I suspect that you are doing the philosopher's trick of using a word
in two distinct ways and pretending they are the same (I apologise if
this is not the case). My analogy is indeed centered around the environment
in which control loops exists, but it is not centred around the
environment on which they act. In other words, yes for the power sources
of the output function, and the like, no for the environmental feedback
function.

Also, I don't see the link between my discussion of how the hierarchy
comes to have characteristics that are constrained by the stability of
the available environmental feedback functions and your comment:

So the perception of cost (if it is perceived) would be generated
internally and constrained by the environment, just like any other
perception.

It is true that if the environment offers only one path to food, then
you must walk that path in order to get food. But I do not see this
as a constraint. I think that I see it as an option: You have the
option to satisfy your hunger. What gets constrained is the control
loops that for some reason are disturbed when you walk the path.

No, even on several re-readings, I don't see where you intend your comment
to impinge on the passage on which you are commenting.

Sorry.

Martin