Response to Martin Taylor

CSGnet Archive CSG1993
1

Martin:

I think I am understanding what you and others are saying about CROWD. If I
have interpreted all statements correctly, there seems to be some divergence
within subscribers to CGSnet.

One claim is that the patterns of organization that emerge from interactions
of the elements is of no consequence. I assume that means, nonfunctional. As
birds flock, they space themselves on the basis of local information, which
results in a pattern we recognize but they do not. Of course, some argue that
the flocking behavior is functional in terms of aerodynamics for the flock. I
am trying to think of a better example. Perhaps a concert audience seated on
a grassy slope. There will be clusters of friends with the clusters spaced.
Whatever global pattern emerges would be nonfunctional in terms of listening
to the concert.

Those who pursue dynamical systems from an ecological perspective argue that
individual behavior is best understood via dynamical systems theory, with
nonlinear state transitions as crucial phenomena of interest (Thelen and Ulrich
on the development of walking in infants, Bingham on throwing -- ask for full
references if you are interested). [Thus, I believe there is a chasm
between HPCT and this version of dynamical systems theory.]

I think the argument goes as follows (although I do not remember seeing this
anywhere in print): What appears to be a closed loop feedback system will
succumb to a more detailed analysis, much in the sense that biological
temperature control can succumb to a more detailed analyses. A focus on
feedback concepts might impede a detailed understanding of the process. The
appropriate concepts to pursue these understandings are found in dynamical
systems theory.

An example I have offered before on this net is of the tennis serve. How is
the appropriate pattern of body configurations and motions assembled? Outcome
variables (errors in location, or unsatisfactory velocity) do not inform
directly about the necessary adjustments (e.g., shoulder rotation, wrist
snap).

No one would argue, from this perspective, that the global organization is a
controlled variable. In this sense, there is consistency with HPCT. They do
argue that the global organization is functional and is the central phenomenon
to be explained. At least some of the comments I have received on the net
suggest that many in HPCT would object to that focus. They appear to believe
that the organization at that level is irrelevant. Correct me if I have
misunderstood.

Dynamics (chaos, self organization) may be a trendy science. However, the
ecological perspective on this started to evolve in the mid 70s; some time, I
believe, before it became trendy. I believe that this direction, although not
anticipated by James Gibson, has evolved in a manner that honors the issues and
concerns that he saw as being central to the study of perception and action.
Gavan Lintern
Aviation Research Laboratory
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
# 1 Airport Rd., Savoy, IL 61874
TEL: (217) 244-8637/6905 FAX: 244-8647

2

[Martin Taylor 931101 1310]
(Gavan Lintern 1 Nov 1993 10:24:55)

One claim is that the patterns of organization that emerge from interactions
of the elements is of no consequence. I assume that means, nonfunctional. As
birds flock, they space themselves on the basis of local information, which
results in a pattern we recognize but they do not. Of course, some argue that
the flocking behavior is functional in terms of aerodynamics for the flock.

...

A focus on
feedback concepts might impede a detailed understanding of the process. The
appropriate concepts to pursue these understandings are found in dynamical
systems theory.

I agree totally.

In Durango, I presented a discussion of the development of language as
a social artifact that is a dynamical attractor determined by the
interaction of independent hierarchic control systems satisfying their
own reference levels by means of actions that have their effects through
the actions of other control systems. "Pass the salt" is a less effective
way of obtainin the perception of salt-in-hand than is "Please pass the salt."
The whole syntactic and semantic structure of language is such a social
convention.

A week or ten days ago (I've lost the reference) I posted on "mutuality,"
a concept just like your V-flight of geese. In a mutuality relationship,
two control systems act on the environment in such a way that each reduces
the disturbance to the CEV of the other. Each, by satisfying its own
perceptual reference, helps the other to do the same. If these in some
way evolve so that their descendants tend to be found together, the pairs
will be more survivable than the individuals separately, whether they be
multicellular organisms or social groups.

Any structure that incorporates feedback MAY be analyzed using dynamical
systems theory. My version of the claim of PCT is that it is a specialized
form that takes note of the fact that high stability in the face of a
thermodynamically "hot" environment requires control--negative feedback
that stabilizes the values of various functions of the environment--and
that the stability is greatly enhanced by a hierarchy of hereogeneous
control systems in which the higher levels control functions of the values
that are stabilized by the lower levels.

The special nature of the stabilized structure within an individual makes
it much more valuable to deal with it in the special way provided by HCT
than as a general problem in dynamics. But there is no such (obvious)
constraint to identify a specialization of dynamic theory when it comes
to social interactions.

For Rick: you aren't the first to note the problems of "trendy science."
My first professsor was a little more subtle, pointing out that a well
filled toolbag was much more useful than one that contained only a hammer.
He was involved in the first flurry of interest in information theory in
psychology, and was very careful to warn me that it would become trendy and
therefore would soon be discounted by all the people who had seen it used
inappropriately--a hammer to drive in wood screws. "Trendy science" is
trendy because it is useful in the right place; "trendy" is pejorative
because the science is often used in the wrong place. It is sometimes
hard to know right from wrong until you try, and find that hammered
screws pull out quicker than screwdriven screws.

Martin