Sunsts and PCT (Addendum )

[From Rick Marken (2003.07.03.1030)]

Marc Abrams (2003.07.03.0819)--

HPCT needs an overhaul. Bill and Rick don't want to hear this.

I don't want to hear this without also hearing why and how it should be
overhauled. As per my earlier post, what needs to be overhauled? Specifically.
And why does it need overhauling? Just saying it's "out of date" doesn't help
much. f = ma is pretty old, too. Is that out of date? I would love to hear some
ideas about what should be overhauled in PCT and why. But I'd like to hear it from
someone who can actually explain what should be overhauled in PCT and why.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.07.03.0819) ]

Just wanted to add this note. Where in the brain stuff originates from and
winds up is really of secondary importance, and will probably be up for
grabs for many years to come. Like the HPCT hierarchy, we may not know the
exact # and type of orders but we all feel comfortable that _some_ king of
hierarchy exists. Likewise with the brain, we don't know where stuff might
be located, but we do know it's located in ther brain. Interesting questions
about how the brain regulates ( i.e. controls ) our various physiological
systems and provides us with consciousness, emotion, and memory are
questions that are being addressed today. Yes, there is a lot of hand waving
going on, but much important and serious work is going on as well. To ignore
the serious stuff because of a few hand wavers seems self-defeating to me.
To make believe that nothing has changed in 30 -50 years, in my mind, is
both self-defeating and not being very forthright to 'scientific' ideals.

HPCT needs an overhaul. Bill and Rick don't want to hear this. They are so
busy fighting strawmen they simply refuse to acknowledge that revision is
needed. My case in point is this exchange with Rick. HPCT has not kept up
with the known physiological, & biological _facts_. To refer me to a
document that is 30 years old and whose ideas are probably closer to 50
years old ( B:CP ) is hubris of the highest order. B:CP is not the bible.
( although it seems to be to some on this list ). B:CP has _many_ good and
endearing qualities. But it has many outdated ideas and omits ( emotion,
memory, consciousness ) some very important and central ideas about human
behavior.

Humans are not isomorphic or monomorphic with a control system. Control is
but one aspect of ( albeit, an important one ) human behavior. You can have
control without memory, consciousness, and emotion. You just can't have a
human.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2003.07.03.1250)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0703.1515)--

B:CP contains
numerous speculations on how a control model could be expanded to become
a theory of all human experience rather than a theory of human
purposeful behavior. These speculations on the nature of memory,
imagination, and emotion have not kept up with burgeoning data and
therefore, from my point of view, are largely of historical interest.

kept up with control theory. Like the rest of the data collected in conventional
psychology, the data on memory, imagination and emotion has been collected in the
context of a causal model of behavior (the IV_DV framework for data collection and
analysis). I have read reports of research on memory, imagination and emotion that was
done within the last 5 years and it is no different than the research that was done
back in the 60, 70s and 80s, when I was trying to keep up with the literature.
However, it's certainly possible that there is recent research that is relevant to the
PCT model of memory, imagination and emotion. Why not describe a specific piece of
current research and show how the results of that research are incompatible with the
PCT model of memory, imagination or emotion? Wouldn't that be more interesting than
than just pissing on PCT? At least you wouldn't be pissing into the wind.

Best regards

Rick

···

from my perspective, the "burgeoning data" on memory, imagination and emotion has not
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0703.1515)]

Rick Marken (2003.07.03.1030)

Marc Abrams (2003.07.03.0819)--

HPCT needs an overhaul. Bill and Rick don't want to hear this.

I don't want to hear this without also hearing why and how it should be
overhauled. As per my earlier post, what needs to be overhauled? Specifically.
And why does it need overhauling? Just saying it's "out of date" doesn't help
much. f = ma is pretty old, too. Is that out of date? I would love to hear some
ideas about what should be overhauled in PCT and why. But I'd like to hear it from
someone who can actually explain what should be overhauled in PCT and why.

I am not one who thinks PCT needs overhauling. As a theory of control it
seems perfectly adequate and certainly better than any existing
alternative. I would, however, distinguish between the mathematical
model, which has been, and is being, tested, and the 'superstructure'
which is more of a just-so story than a testable theory. B:CP contains
numerous speculations on how a control model could be expanded to become
a theory of all human experience rather than a theory of human
purposeful behavior. These speculations on the nature of memory,
imagination, and emotion have not kept up with burgeoning data and
therefore, from my point of view, are largely of historical interest. It
may be, of course, that they will be subject to more rigorous
formulation and empirical tests at some time in the future. Should that
happen we will see how well their predictions match the data.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Bill Powers (2003.07.03.1526 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0703.1515) --

These speculations on the nature of memory, imagination, and emotion have
not kept up with burgeoning data and therefore, from my point of view, are
largely of historical interest.

It would be a service if you could provide a review of this burgeoning data
-- perhaps the model could be modified to take it into account.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0703.1859)]

Rick Marken (2003.07.03.1250)

However, it's certainly possible that there is recent research that is relevant to the
PCT model of memory, imagination and emotion. Why not describe a specific piece of
current research and show how the results of that research are incompatible with the
PCT model of memory, imagination or emotion? Wouldn't that be more interesting than
than just pissing on PCT? At least you wouldn't be pissing into the wind.

Pissing on PCT? I bet you can identify with the Bushies when they wail
that anyone who differs with them is a traitor. Look, you and Bill are
happy. I'm happy for you. Someday your faith will be vindicated. I'll be
among the first to congratulate you.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0703.1900)]

Bill Powers (2003.07.03.1526 MDT)

Bruce Gregory (2003.0703.1515) --

These speculations on the nature of memory, imagination, and emotion have
not kept up with burgeoning data and therefore, from my point of view,
are
largely of historical interest.

It would be a service if you could provide a review of this burgeoning data
-- perhaps the model could be modified to take it into account.

Been there. Done that. I'm sure the delay line model handles any I
evidence I might cite. I guess that's why it has swept the world of
neurophysiology.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Bill Powers (2003.07.03,2114 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0703.1900)--

It would be a service if you could provide a review of this burgeoning data
-- perhaps the model could be modified to take it into account.

Been there. Done that. I'm sure the delay line model handles any I
evidence I might cite. I guess that's why it has swept the world of
neurophysiology.

I really can't tell when you're being up-front and when you're mocking. Is
there really a delay-line model that's sweeping the world of
neurophysiology? Or is this a swipe at my artificial cerebellum model,
pointing out that neurophysiology has ignored it (so, ipso facto, it must
be no good)?

You offered the idea that if the amygdala lights up before the forebrain
when a disturbance occurs, it must be part of a lower-order system (at
least that's what I thought you were saying). Did my reply make no sense to
you? I think I agreed with you.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Dick Robertson,2003.07.04.1450CDT]

Bruce Gregory wrote:

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0703.1900)]

Bill Powers (2003.07.03.1526 MDT)
>
> Bruce Gregory (2003.0703.1515) --
>
>> These speculations on the nature of memory, imagination, and emotion have
>> not kept up with burgeoning data and therefore, from my point of view,
>> are
>> largely of historical interest.
>
>
> It would be a service if you could provide a review of this burgeoning data
> -- perhaps the model could be modified to take it into account.

Been there. Done that. I'm sure the delay line model

What the h___is the "delay line model?" I think I've been following the
discussion fairly well, but I can't recall any previous reference to this.

Best, Dick R