Slimed

CSGnet Archive CSG1997
1

[From Bruce Abbott (970812.0945 EST)]

More loose ends . . .

Rick Marken (970803.0900) --

While checking to see whether Yahoo had changed
the URL for "Mind Readings" (they haven't) I "tumbled" upon a
chapter by William Calvin, a biologist (I think) at the U. of
Washington, in which he describes Darwinian selection as being
equivalent to E. coli navigation (http://weber.u.washington.edu/
wcalvin/bk4/bk4ch2.htm). He never explicitly says that Darwinian
selection is closed loop control but he does imply that the
Darwinian/E. coli process is purposeful. . . .

Bill Powers (970803.1121 MDT --

That's kind of a downer. I've spent most of my life trying to persuade
psychologists that the control model ought to be considered, and now
they're "reinventing" it, or at least adopting the language.

I know that lots of psychologists have become aware of my work over the
years. But they don't address it directly; instead, they think up
refutations of their understanding of my proposals without actually saying
they're aimed at my ideas -- my work is seldom mentioned. It's like seeing
a negative of a photograph, or the light place under the rectangle where a
picture used to hang. Do you suppose the time will ever come when a
historian of science comes right out and says, "Hey, Powers was saying all
this 20 years before anyone else, so where are the citations?" Well, in the
case of E. coli it was 14 years, but that's averaged out by the things I
was saying 40 years ago. I know that I pretend that I don't care about such
stuff, but I really do. It all seems terribly unfair.

Rick Marken (970703.1550) to Bill Powers --

. . . those who are busy refuting and reinventing
(without attribution) your beautiful, brilliant discovery/creation
(PCT) are a special kind of life form, commonly known as _slime_.

I can understand Bill's frustration, but wonder whether William Calvin's
work is a case in point. Does Rick really mean to imply that William Calvin
should be classified as "slime"? I really find such language offensive and
completely out of place in a forum that represents itself as following a
humanist philosophy.

Applying such a label to all who defend a different point of view, or who
independently come up with ideas similar to Bill's, is taking the lowest of
low roads. I am not surprised that Rick Marken said it, but I find it
disconcerting to hear no disavowal of it from any other member of this
forum. Is this road really the one we want to take?

I have no idea where Dr. Calvin came up with his notion of e. coli as
exhibiting purposive behavior (and neither does Rick); however, the lack of
citation (if not his own idea) is to be expected as Calvin's book is
intended for a lay audience and does not use that style, found in
professional articles, of citing the sources of every idea. As Calvin is a
biologist and not a psychologist, it is doubtful that he has encountered
Marken and Power's (1989) paper discussing the e. coli mechanism, which
appeared in a psychology journal.

Regards,

Bruce

2

[From Rick Marken (970812.08910)]

Me:

. . . those who are busy refuting and reinventing (without
attribution) your beautiful, brilliant discovery/creation
(PCT) are a special kind of life form, commonly known as _slime_.

Bruce Abbott (970812.0945 EST)

I really find such language offensive and completely out of
place in a forum that represents itself as following a humanist
philosophy.

This forum is dedicated to understanding people (and other
organisms) as purposeful (control) systems. Just because one
sees people as purposeful doesn't mean that one has to to like
all their purposes. Hitler was purposeful but I didn't care
for all his purposes.

Applying such a label to all who defend a different point of
view, or who independently come up with ideas similar to Bill's,
is taking the lowest of low roads.

This is not what I consider slimey. The people I consider slimey
are the one's Bill described:

[People who] don't address [PCT] directly; instead, they think
up refutations of their understanding of my proposals without
actually saying they're aimed at my ideas -- my work is seldom
mentioned.

This is one reason why we have seen so little reference to Powers
work over the 40 years of its existence -- this and the work of
another form of slime who are busy convincing themselves and others
that PCT is nothing but...

I have no idea where Dr. Calvin came up with his notion of
e. coli as exhibiting purposive behavior (and neither does Rick);
however, the lack of citation (if not his own idea) is to be
expected as Calvin's book is intended for a lay audience

What I found troubling about Calvin's discussion was not the lack
of citation of our work; it was what I read as a sneering attitude
toward the idea that behavior (to say nothing of evolution) was
purposeful. Calvin was using the E. coli model as an example of
how Darwinian selection could result in the _appearance_ of
purposefulness. Calvin showed no evidence of understanding that
the E. coli navigation process is a _control_ (purposeful)
process. In fact, E. coli does _not_ get to the target because
successful moves are "selected" (as in Darwinian selection); it
gets to the target because it controls its perception (by time-
biasing a random process) of a perceived concentration gradient.

I don't think this kind of misunderstanding on Calvin's part
is necesarily slimey but I do think it is rather unfortunate.
Calvin _may_ be slimey (he is if he is doing what he seems to
be doing -- refuting PCT without acknowledging it) but I can't
tell by just looking at his behavior (his writing); I'd have to
test to see what variables he's controlling for. I reserve the
term slime for people I know to be controlling for slimey
perceptions.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

3

[From Bruce Gregory 9970812.1345 EDT)]

Rick Marken (970812.08910)

What I found troubling about Calvin's discussion was not the lack
of citation of our work; it was what I read as a sneering attitude
toward the idea that behavior (to say nothing of evolution) was
purposeful. Calvin was using the E. coli model as an example of
how Darwinian selection could result in the _appearance_ of
purposefulness. Calvin showed no evidence of understanding that
the E. coli navigation process is a _control_ (purposeful)
process. In fact, E. coli does _not_ get to the target because
successful moves are "selected" (as in Darwinian selection); it
gets to the target because it controls its perception (by time-
biasing a random process) of a perceived concentration gradient.

Actually Calvin argued in an earlier book that throwing a spear
cannot be controlled by neural feedback (too slow). He used this
"insight" to conclude that the human brain developed to enhance
spear throwing capability. Since human beings spend relatively
little time throw spears, he reasoned, the machinery was idle
much of the time and available for employment in language and
thought. Quite remarkable. I'll look for the reference.

Bruce

4

[From Bill Powers (970812.1458 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory 9970812.1345 EDT)--

Actually Calvin argued in an earlier book that throwing a spear
cannot be controlled by neural feedback (too slow).

Mary, smart kid, found it in our stock of miscellaneous paperbacks:

Calvin, William H. (1983). The Throwing Madonna. New York: McGraw-Hill.

I'm sure there is much of interest in this book, but it's spoiled by the
fairy tales.

Best,

Bill P.

He used this

···

"insight" to conclude that the human brain developed to enhance
spear throwing capability. Since human beings spend relatively
little time throw spears, he reasoned, the machinery was idle
much of the time and available for employment in language and
thought. Quite remarkable. I'll look for the reference.

Bruce

5

[Avery Andrews, 970813:0936, Eastern Oz Time]
  (Bruce Gregory 9970812.1345 EDT)

...
Actually Calvin argued in an earlier book that throwing a spear
cannot be controlled by neural feedback (too slow). He used this
"insight" to conclude that the human brain developed to enhance
spear throwing capability. Since human beings spend relatively
little time throw spears, he reasoned, the machinery was idle
much of the time and available for employment in language and
thought. Quite remarkable. I'll look for the reference.

...

I've made a few postings in the past about the `ballistic' nature of
speaking (along the lines that it involves controlling a model-perception
of what the interlocutor thinks/intends, which would go along with Calvin's
idea), but on the other hand I find it very hard to see how the computational
resources that might be involved in spear-throwing (quantatively precise
prediction) would have much to do with those required for controlling
modelled mental states (qualitatively complex prediction). But since
nobody knows how brains can do grammar anyway, maybe this isn't a sound
criticism.

AVery.Andrews@anu.edu.au