From[ Bill Williams 9 May 2004 12:50 PM CST ]I am once again updating
Rick's scorecard as a result of his recent posting.In the following post, >
[From Rick Marken (2004.05.09.1000)]> > > Martin Taylor
(2004.05.09.10.15)--> >> >> Bill Powers (2004.05.09.0430 MST)> >> >> I think
the crux of the matter here is whether we are talking merely> >> about> >>
the behavior of a perceptual variable whose existence is taken for> >>
granted, or about the processes by which one perceptual variable is> >>
generated as a function of other variables: the signals, or the> >>
>> functions. It seems to me that in these discussions,
>> those of> >> Peter Small, this distinction is blurred
almost out of existence.> >> > It's a distinction that is easy to lose. So
far, I'm talking only> > about the behaviour of a variable, which might be
perceptual.> > But the behavior of the perceptual (and other) signals is
quite well by control theory. Of course, the most important
thing, I> think, about the dynamic behavior of the perceptual signal is that
follows, to a close approximation, temporal variations in the reference>
signal. Rick first says, " the behavior of the perceptual (and other)
signals is explained " quite well by control theory."As Rick has expressed
this claim, it is not true. Judging by what Rick is saying one might expect
that there is in existencea control theory explanation for behaviors such as
the problem presented byBuridan's Ass which there is not, for pilot induced
oscillation, which thereis not, for the various illusions recently being
discussed, which there isnot. Not only is there an absence of "quite well"
explanations, there is fora verly large number of problems no explanations
at all. What Rick is doing here is patting Rick on the back in the guise
praising control theory. Thisis more plausible perhaps than Rick directly
making claims on his own behalf,but it would be better if Rick didn't make
claims that can not be supported in behalf of control theory. Now I happen
to think that the explainationsgiven in _B:CP_ amount to a promising sketch
of human behavior in terms ofcontrol theory, this is a quite different thing
that claiming as Rick doesthat, " the behavior of the perceptual (and other)
signals is explained " quite well by control theory."Rick's statement
amounts to a claim that the control theory explaination ofbehavior is a
mature science which it rather clearly, at least in my perception it is
not-- and will not be for quite some time. Score minus 1Then Rick says,
Of course, the most important thing, I> think, about the dynamic
behavior of the perceptual signal is that it> follows, to a close
approximation, temporal variations in the reference> signal. This is not
true. There are, however, classic examples such as the much discussed one of
pilot induced oscillations for which Rick's claim is mistaken. In a PIOthe
perceptual signal is never close to the reference signal. And, in caseof
configurations in which there is a conflict between control loops thereare
chronic errors. Score minus 1Rick is posing as a PCT expert, but when he
does so he frequently makesreadily apparent and fundamental errors. Bill
Williams
I am updating Rick's score card as a result of his performance in
which he attempts to impersonation economic methodologist. What Rick has to
say has been many times before. And, like the story of a reviewer a
conference who began his comments with, "There is much in this paper that is
good, and there is much in this that is new. Unfortunately what is good
is not new,and what is new is not good. What Rick has had to contribute
economic discussions on the CSGnet have consistently been on the
assumption that there is a single thing called. Since the premise
is wrong, whatever Rick derives this assumption is also likely, and
except by accident,faulty. Now Rick seems to be adopting an oracle's
style in which heportentiously repeats the entirely obvious. I suppose the
tactic here is that he will repeat the tiresomely obvious until we all fall
asleep, and then he will insert a gratuitous howler.From[Bill Williams 17
April 2004 3:00 PM CST]
[From Rick Marken (2004.04.17.0940)]
Bryan Thalhammer (2004.04.16.1905 CDT) --
I agree with you completely, Bryan.
And, You are equally clueless.
But I don't think it's going to happen.
Rick seems to be getting discouraged. But, I am just beginning
to have fun.
I think the only reason there is any contention on CSGNet is
because Bill Powers' presence makes CSGNet the "official" PCT
discussion group.
I would say this a bit differently-- the "officious" discussion group.
Here's where you can get a proffesionalized pollicy recommendation that
pedophiles would make good police officers.
If Bill were not here, then the trouble makers wouldn't be trying to
take it over.
Rick says that he hates being lied to. But, he doesn't mind not telling the
truth. Who is it that is trying to take-over the CSGnet? And, how, by
tapping on a keyboard in Kansas City can anyone, pedophiles included in
this,
take-over a discussion? Rick however, reports that he can not resist
reading
posts-- that as I see it is Rick's problem. I apparently have figured out
how
to force Rick to read my posts, And, Bill Powers also reports being subject
to this external control. What I say to Bill Powers has the irresistible
effect of inducing an urge to bite me. Just as in the good old days I
used
behaviorism to force Bill Powers to talk to me endless and so preserved my
store of economic secrets.
I score this sentence minus one on a truth scale. I was going to go back
through the CSGnet archives and dig out stuff that Rick had said, or that
others had said about Rick. But, for now I will content myself with keeping
a running tab on Rick.
They could just play in their own sandbox.
Actually, our alternative "sandbox" is running fairly well. If some one
consistently doesn't behave out they go.
Since Bill is opposed to a moderated list, CSGNet will never become a
professional forum for discussion of PCT. I think this is a mistake on
Bill's part. I think we're throwing away a great opportunity (provided
by the development of the Internet) to have a world-wide forum for
competent (and civil) discussion of a great intellectual achievement.
I suppose that a moderator could make the CSGnet a safe place for Rick
Marken
to call Michelle an "ignorant slut?" And, obviously a recommendation that
pedophiles would make great police officers meets the criteria for
"competent"
discussion of and a "contribution" to a great intellectual achievement.
Score
minus one.
I'm sure there will still be useful discussions on CSGNet every so
often.
Such as the perennial return to the neglected merits of Bill Powers' dad's
_leakeages_ thesis., the conspiracy of every last credentialized economist
living economist to conceal the truth.
But CSGNet as a professional forum for discussion of PCT --
outside of academia, where PCT is rarely taught --
UMKC being an exception.
Rick concludes by saying,
The real disappointment is that, because of the persistent
garbage posted to an immoderate CSGNet, we can't recommend it to
students and colleagues to whom it could be of enormous benefit.
you "can't." What is stopping you. Is it things like my commentary-- where
Mat Dillion rolling about in a wheel chair, with a cowboy hat on, shoots
deputy Chester in the foot." Which reminds me, I am going to have to go to
the archive and look that episode up. I have forgotten already what it was
about. Marshall Dillion had to have reason to have made him shoot his deputy
Chester in the foot. I know it had something to do with making Chester
dance, but why in particular did Marshall Dillion want Chester to dance.
Chester was somewhat crippled up anyway, and it really isn't considered
civilizedto shoot people in the feet anyway.
Still I am not going to give way to pity. I score this passage with another
minus one.
Cumulative score minus three.
I was never that curious why Bill Powers said that Ricks effort to (I almost
slipped and called what Rick was trying to do economic modeling) breath life
into Bill's Powers' dad's _Leakages_ thesis, and called what Rick was doing,
or at any rate something that Rick was doing, "a giant leap in the wrong
direction." But, I am curious, about why in particular did Marshall Dillion
shoot Chester in the foot?
Bill Williams
···
On the contrary. I recommend it to both students and colleagues. Who says
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Taylor" <mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Self Interest
[Martin Taylor 2004.04.27.23.23]
>[From Richard Kennaway (2004.04.27 16:18 BST)]
>
>>From[Bill Williams 26 April 2004 3:40 PM CST]
>>
>>When you assume that an economic agent maximizes and the agents goals
>>are free from interdependencies then as it has been widely claimed it
can be
>>proven that market solutions are best. There is no need to look and any
> ^^^
at?
>>evidence.
>
>This is in contrast to the usual practice in scientific disciplines,
>where the consequences of one's assumptions are subjected to
>experimental test."When you assume" is a simple dig at the classical economists against
whom Bill W so often inveighs. He is saying that there exist people
who claim their discpline to be scientific, and so rigorous that one
must know the results to be true without looking at any evidence...
Hah!But there are such disciplines, which one must nevertheless treat
with respect. We collect them under the rubric of "mathematics."
Presumably "classical" economics belongs there.Using mathematical disciples, "when we assume" some fact or other,
consequences do appear and need no test against reality. But if what
we assume is intended to match reality, and the hope is that the laws
of the particular branch of mathematics do also, then one gets an
experimental-theoretical science like physics, where the consequences
can be and should be checked against reality.The problem with economics is that politicians tend to treat as
reality the abstract mathematical results that are based on
assumptions and rules that have failed checks against reality. It's
not a problem with economics as mathematics. It's a problem with
misuse of a branch of mathematics by people who don't understand that
it is only a branch of mathematics and not an
experimental-theoretical science.Martin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main CSGNET page
Listserv web interface at UIUC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Marken" <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: perceptions as attractor basins
[From Rick Marken (2004.05.09.1000)]
> Martin Taylor (2004.05.09.10.15)--
>
>> Bill Powers (2004.05.09.0430 MST)
>
>> I think the crux of the matter here is whether we are talking merely
>> about
>> the behavior of a perceptual variable whose existence is taken for
>> granted, or about the processes by which one perceptual variable is
>> generated as a function of other variables: the signals, or the
>> transfer
>> functions. It seems to me that in these discussions, particularly
>> those of
>> Peter Small, this distinction is blurred almost out of existence.
>
> It's a distinction that is easy to lose. So far, I'm talking only
> about the behaviour of a variable, which might be perceptual.But the behavior of the perceptual (and other) signals is explained
quite well by control theory. Of course, the most important thing, I
think, about the dynamic behavior of the perceptual signal is that it
follows, to a close approximation, temporal variations in the reference
signal. I don't see what the notion of dynamic attractors can
contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of the perceptual (or
any other variables) in a control that goes beyond this.I think there _might_ be something dynamic attractor theory can
contribute to our understanding of the functions that generates one
perceptual variable as a function of others - the perceptual function.
But I think the behavior of perceptual variables themselves is pretty
well handled by PCT.Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400