[From Bob Clark (930523.1615 EDT)]

Dag forssell (930517.1418 & same-2.1746)

Thanks Dag, for the suggestion. I regularly delete the contents of
my desk when I've printed out the ones I want. Unfortunately, I
thought I had Avery's item printed before I deleted the batch, but I

Thanks, anyway.

Avery Andrews (930517.1838 EST)

Thanks for the re-posting.

Your original post intrigued me, because your view of the developing
situation seems to resemble my own -- but expressed in quite
different terms.

"perception 'about to be jolted,' "time-till-collision," "presupposes
mechanisms capable of extrapolating likely outcomes of current
situations on the basis of past experience (presumably involving
memory in some matter)."

But, of course! It seems to me that memories can take several forms:
A implies B (a static relationship, "A is for 'Apple'"), a sequence
of events (last night's TV show, mentally replayed), yesterday's
committee meeting, combined with other remembered information about
the participants, providing a basis for (imaginary) anticipation
(extrapolation, etc) at some future meeting of the same committee.

Here, of course, the bike rider has memories of previous bumps, and
procedures to reduce the jolt. Whatever entity, or level of
consciousness, or what not, is involved takes a "quick look" and
selects a sequence of movements from remembered strategies (programs?)
to be used at a suitable time. And all this, it seems to me, requires
and amazingly short amount of time.

In the above, I am trying to describe the events as I think the rider
would experience them. I am NOT trying to EXPLAIN anything. The
rider, I think, cares nothing (at that moment) about explanations.
He is just avoiding a jolt.

However, an observer with an Engineering viewpoint, may undertake to
describe the same events by including the existence of various
relevant reference signals, their relations to the perceived
environmental variables, the sequence of actions of the several
output functions required for the temporary rise off the saddle, etc,

I think we should be able to converse with ordinary people about
ordinary events without needing to use the formal language of HPCT.
We don't bother to use Newton's Laws in talking about crashes at the
Indianapolis Race Track.

But the formal language is very important, and necessary, in certain
situations, such as anticipation of the behavior of other people.

Does some of this make sense to you?

Sorry to have been so long in responding, but my study of the
operation of the city government sometimes takes a bit of time.

Regards, Bob Clark