Skepticism; Hans?

From Tom Bourbon [931115.1309]

Re: posts about feedforward and related topics, starting with:

Hans, I believe it is imperative that you provide further information on
your own ideas concerning feedback and feedforward in the instance of a
person walking through a darkened bedroom and climbing into bed. The
present discussion of feedback and feedforward began with a post in which
you said a little about that instance, but unfortunately you said too little
for some of us to know your ideas about several important details. At the
conclusion of this post, I will repeat a brief post in which I identified
a few of those details.

Now, even more than earlier, I believe additional information from you is
necessary. In the absence of a clear understanding of your original
meaning, the tone of the ensuing discussion has become rather disturbing.
A few examples. Martin Taylor [931112 17:50] has characterized remarks by
Bill Powers, on one topic inspired by your post, as "irrelevant," but I did
not think the remarks in question were irrelevant. Further, Martin [Martin
Taylor 931114 01:20] has said that more PCT modelers should demonstrate a
grater degree of skepticism, more like yours. Rick Marken (931114 01:20)
took exception with Martin's assertion, calling it gratuitous, and Martin
has posted a rejoinder [Martin Taylor 931115 10:40]. And in his earlier post
[Martin Taylor 931114 01:20], Martin said, concerning part of a discussion
by Bill Powers, he (Martin) "can't determine whether this is missing the
point or simple sophistry."

In his rejoinder to Rick, Martin said: "As I said to Tom last week, it seems
fruitless to continue this discussion here. It gets so wound up in
misunderstandings of the basic notions of probability and information that
nothing useful is communicated." But I believe the discussion of this topic
is too important to leave in its present state.

Hans, it is clear that many of us on the net think the topics you raised
are important. It is equally clear that, absent additional information
from you about what *you* think, not what *we* (including Martin) think you
think, the tone of the discussion is taking a rather nasty turn. Please,
give us more information on the topics I mentioned in this earlier post:

From Tom Bourbon [931112.1722]

Hans, there has been much discussion in recent days about what you have said
about how to model a person who walks through a familiar but darkened
bedroom, pulls back the covers and climbs into bed. Obviously, opinions on
what you said, or intended to say, are divided. So that we can all avoid
unnecessary speculations and false interpretations, could you tell us, in
your own words, as clearly as possible and in as much detail as possible,
how you think a person achieves that feat? If you agree to do that, please
include *all* major features of the model you would use. I am *not* asking
for all of the computational details -- just a clear account from you of
whether you would use one ECS, or many; if there are many, whether they are
all in one sensory modality or in several; if there are many, whether they
are in a hierarchy, in parallel, or both; if there are many, and you speak
of depriving the person of sensory feedback, which modalities are deprived,
or are they all; if there are many, and if only some are deprived, what are
the others doing?

Those are not the only inmportant topics you might address, but they are
among the ones about which there are different interpretations on the net.
If you agree to provide this clarification of your ideas, I would appreciate
your efforts. I am sure others would share that feeling of gratitude.

Until later,

Tom

P.S. Even more than when I originally sent that post, I would appreciate
additional information from you, Hans.