Theory of Mind?

CSGnet Archive CSG2011
1

[From Rick Marken (2011.11.19.1115)]

An economist friend of mine who is reading the new book by Daniel
Kahneman (a psychologist who won the Nobel in economics) asked me if I
was familiar with the Heider-Simmel demonstration. I wasn't but I
looked it up and here it is on you tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZBKer6PMtM

Apparently this little demo done way back in 1944 is kind of the
seminal work in what has become known as "Theory of Mind" which, as
far as I can tell, is a cognitive theory of other people's theories of
mind. The theory seems to be that people read intentions into overt
behavior even when this behavior is clearly unintentional (as in the
Heider-Simmel demo). The thing that strikes me as peculiar is that
"Theory of Mind" seems to have no theory of what intentional behavior
_is_ and how it differs from unintentional behavior. The theory is all
about what kinds of intentions people "attribute" to certain behaviors
but it says nothing about what intentionality actually is. Perhaps
someone out there who knows more about this can set me straight on
this. But it struck me that maybe this "theory of mind" stuff might be
another way for PCT insinuate itself into "mainstream" psychology
(Kahneman is certainly mainstream and very trendy now, apparently, so
maybe we can use whatever he says in his book about this as an entry
point).

Anyway, the Heider-Simmel demo inspired my to change my "Detection of
Purpose" demo so that it's more like their cartoon. Instead of squares
moving randomly around the screen I now have three squares following a
little lead square. So now it looks like three squares are
intentionally doing something -- following the leader. But in fact
only one of the squares is intentionally following (controlling for
being behind the leader; the other two are just programmed to move in
a path that is a few pixels behind the leader; they are not
intentional agents. The demo is at.

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/FindMind.html

It seems to me that from a "theory of mind" perspective all three
following squares can be equally validly considered to be
intentionally following the leader; there is no question of which one
is really doing this intentionally (or is there? if so, I'd like to
know what theory of mind says about this). From a PCT perspective, any
or all of the squares _may be_ following intentionally but YOU CAN'T
TELL BY JUST LOOKING AT THE BEHAVIOR OF THE SQUARES. According to PCT,
you can't tell what a person is doing (intentionally) by just looking
at what they are doing (their overt behavior). You have to test to see
if "following" is being controlled. In the demo you can test to see
which of the three is actually controlling for following by moving the
mouse, which "pushes on all three following squares. This push
disturbance is resisted only by the square that is actually following
intentionally. So there is a right answer to the question of which
squares is _really_ following intentionally, even though all three
squares appear to be following intentionally (when undisturbed).

Anyway, let me know what you think of the demo. And if anyone is
familiar with "Theory of Mind" let me know if you think that this may
be a possible entry point into "mainstream" cognitive psychology .

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

2

(gavin Ritz 2011.11.20.10.28nzT)

[From Rick Marken
(2011.11.19.1115)]

Anyway, let me know what you think of the demo. And if
anyone is

familiar with “Theory of Mind” let me know
if you think that this may

be a possible entry point into “mainstream”
cognitive psychology .

Why bother. You haven’t
succeeded in all these years. The mental emotional resistances are too high to
breach in that field. You cannot disturb that field in any effective way.

This is surprising to hear
also as you have been extremely disdainful of anything else to do with any
other theory of mind.

Here’s the crux of
it, there is no theory of mind there never will be. It’s a wild goose
chase. It’s a chimera.

The other issue is the propositions
of PCT, the key one being “we control sensory inputs”. Has more or
less been proved by PCT evidence and experiments and theory and mathematics and
logic.

My question is “so what
exactly does this mean” I think quite a lot.

The very basis of science
is our understanding of the nature of the creation of matter from matter and
the interactions of matter with matter. Made clear by the 4 fundamental forces (gravity,
electromagnetic, weak and strong) science has discovered.

In basic science all our senses
fall into the electromagnetic forces region. (we don’t sense any of the
other three forces). Our sight, sound, smell, taste, heat, pressure all fall
into the electromagnetic forces region.

So in real simple terms
PCT has shown that we control electromagnetic forces, (the entire 5 page
rendition I gave to Adam Matic on this list about 6 months ago) by deduction. Obviously
within limits. (what limits?)

So what are the theoretical
implications that organisms effectively control sensory input that is electromagnetic
forces?

What does this mean for languaging?
(and more specifically what actually is reading and writing and speech)

What does this mean for learning?

In fact what does it mean
for our entire knowledge base?

What exactly is
communication then?

Regards

Gavin

···
3

[From Rick Marken (2011.11.19.2050)]

(gavin Ritz 2011.11.20.10.28nzT)

RM: Anyway, let me know what you think of the demo. And if anyone is
familiar with "Theory of Mind" let me know if you think that this may
be a possible entry point into "mainstream" cognitive psychology .

GR: Why bother. You haven�t succeeded in all these years. The mental emotional
resistances are too high to breach in that field. You cannot disturb that
field in any effective way.

RM: I agree. I guess I'm really more interested in this for my own
sake, as a possible research project/article. I don't really expect
psychologists to get interested in PCT no matter what I do. But I like
to do this stuff for my own self-fulfillment . I think this "theory of
mind" is an interesting area for doing this self-fulfilling because
what I see are psychologists talking about how people perceive
intentions in others while 1) they have no theory of intentional
behavior itself (PCT could help them out there) and 2) the basic model
of behavior ion which they base their research implies that intention
doesn't even exist (and PCT could help them out there too).

GR: This is surprising to hear also as you have been extremely disdainful of
anything else to do with any other theory of mind.

RM: Well, I'd rather be considered "critical" rather than "disdainful"
(I reserve my disdain for Republicans -- the present day kind in the
US anyway). But I 'm sorry that my interest in "theory of mind" gave
you the impression that I was not critical of it. I am very critical
of "theory of mind" for the two reasons given above.

GR: Here�s the crux of it, there is no theory of mind there never will be. It�s
a wild goose chase. It�s a chimera.

RM: Really. I didn't realize you were a behaviorist.

GR: The other issue is the propositions of PCT, the key one being �we control
sensory inputs�...

GR: My question is �so what exactly does this mean� I think quite a lot.

RM: It would take a book to answer that question. Oh wait, there is a
book that answers that question: Behavior: The control of perception
by W. T. Powers.

GR: So what are the theoretical implications that organisms effectively control
sensory input that is electromagnetic forces?

RM: What are the theoretical implications of a theory? Don't you mean
implications regarding what we observe about behavior? One of those
implications is demonstrated in my "Detection of Purpose" demo. Have
you tried it? If so, what did you think?

GR: What does this mean for languaging? (and more specifically what actually is
reading and writing and speech)...
What does this mean for learning?
In fact what does it mean for our entire knowledge base?
What exactly is communication then?

RM: That's what we've been discussing on CSGNet for the last 20+
years: the implications of the fact that behavior is the control of
perception.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

4

(gavin Ritz 2011.11.20.18.04NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2011.11.19.2050)]

(gavin Ritz 2011.11.20.10.28nzT)

RM: Really. I didn’t realize you were a behaviorist.

GR: Me neither. Just too
many labels. Let’s see I’ll call myself a modern post war creative
evolutionist fouteur de merde

GR: So what are the theoretical implications that
organisms effectively control

sensory input that is electromagnetic forces?

RM: What are the theoretical implications of a theory?
Don’t you mean

implications regarding what we observe about behavior?

GR: None of these. PCT
says that we control electromagnetic forces. That is a big deal!!! Apparently.

One of those

implications is demonstrated in my “Detection of
Purpose” demo. Have

you tried it? If so, what did you think?

GR: don’t think so.
Didn’t think you would have any interest in what my opinions are.

RM: That’s what we’ve been discussing on CSGNet for
the last 20+

years: the implications of the fact that behavior is
the control of

perception.

GR: Really, so there u go,
behaviour is the control of electromagnetic forces.

GR

···
5

RM: One of those

implications is demonstrated in my “Detection of Purpose” demo.
Have

you tried it? If so, what did you think?

[From Bill Powers (2011.11.20.0720 MST)]

gavin Ritz
2011.11.20.18.04NZT –

GR:… PCT says
that we control electromagnetic forces. That is a big deal!!!
Apparently.

GR: don’t
think so. Didn’t think you would have any interest in what my opinions
are.

RM: That’s what we’ve been discussing on CSGNet for the last 20+

years: the implications of the fact that behavior is the control of

perception.

GR: Really,
so there u go, behaviour is the control of electromagnetic
forces.

You seem to be equating perception and “electromagnetic
forces.” That’s not how I understand perception. Can you explain
what you mean?

Bill P.

6

Interesting stuff. It perhaps shod be mentioned that not everyone prescribes to the concept ‘theory of mind’. I think PCT does away with much of it. If we are controlling percwptions, why on earth

···

Sent from my HTC

----- Reply message -----
From: “Richard Marken” rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Theory of Mind?
Date: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 19:16

[From Rick Marken (2011.11.19.1115)]

An economist friend of mine who is reading the new book by Daniel
Kahneman (a psychologist who won the Nobel in economics) asked me if I
was familiar with the Heider-Simmel demonstration. I wasn’t but I
looked it up and here it is on you tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZBKer6PMtM

Apparently this little demo done way back in 1944 is kind of the
seminal work in what has become known as “Theory of Mind” which, as
far as I can tell, is a cognitive theory of other people’s theories of
mind. The theory seems to be that people read intentions into overt
behavior even when this behavior is clearly unintentional (as in the
Heider-Simmel demo). The thing that strikes me as peculiar is that
“Theory of Mind” seems to have no theory of what intentional behavior
is and how it differs from unintentional behavior. The theory is all
about what kinds of intentions people “attribute” to certain behaviors
but it says nothing about what intentionality actually is. Perhaps
someone out there who knows more about this can set me straight on
this. But it struck me that maybe this “theory of mind” stuff might be
another way for PCT insinuate itself into “mainstream” psychology
(Kahneman is certainly mainstream and very trendy now, apparently, so
maybe we can use whatever he says in his book about this as an entry
point).

Anyway, the Heider-Simmel demo inspired my to change my “Detection of
Purpose” demo so that it’s more like their cartoon. Instead of squares
moving randomly around the screen I now have three squares following a
little lead square. So now it looks like three squares are
intentionally doing something – following the leader. But in fact
only one of the squares is intentionally following (controlling for
being behind the leader; the other two are just programmed to move in
a path that is a few pixels behind the leader; they are not
intentional agents. The demo is at.

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/FindMind.html

It seems to me that from a “theory of mind” perspective all three
following squares can be equally validly considered to be
intentionally following the leader; there is no question of which one
is really doing this intentionally (or is there? if so, I’d like to
know what theory of mind says about this). From a PCT perspective, any
or all of the squares may be following intentionally but YOU CAN’T
TELL BY JUST LOOKING AT THE BEHAVIOR OF THE SQUARES. According to PCT,
you can’t tell what a person is doing (intentionally) by just looking
at what they are doing (their overt behavior). You have to test to see
if “following” is being controlled. In the demo you can test to see
which of the three is actually controlling for following by moving the
mouse, which "pushes on all three following squares. This push
disturbance is resisted only by the square that is actually following
intentionally. So there is a right answer to the question of which
squares is really following intentionally, even though all three
squares appear to be following intentionally (when undisturbed).

Anyway, let me know what you think of the demo. And if anyone is
familiar with “Theory of Mind” let me know if you think that this may
be a possible entry point into “mainstream” cognitive psychology .

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

7

(Sorry managed to push send by accident)… Why on earth would we attempt to control.something that is not a perception? I think another persons behavior either affects something we control or it does not. Why do we need to theorize about anything? Wittgenstein did quite nicely away with this with speech acts. Oliver

···

Sent from my HTC

----- Reply message -----
From: “Bill Powers” powers_w@FRONTIER.NET
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Theory of Mind?
Date: Sun, Nov 20, 2011 14:23

RM: One of those

implications is demonstrated in my “Detection of Purpose” demo.
Have

you tried it? If so, what did you think?

[From Bill Powers (2011.11.20.0720 MST)]

gavin Ritz
2011.11.20.18.04NZT –

GR:… PCT says
that we control electromagnetic forces. That is a big deal!!!
Apparently.

GR: don�t
think so. Didn�t think you would have any interest in what my opinions
are.

RM: That’s what we’ve been discussing on CSGNet for the last 20+

years: the implications of the fact that behavior is the control of

perception.

GR: Really,
so there u go, behaviour is the control of electromagnetic
forces.

You seem to be equating perception and “electromagnetic
forces.” That’s not how I understand perception. Can you explain
what you mean?

Bill P.

8

[From Rick Marken (2011.11.20.1220)]

OS: Interesting stuff. It perhaps shod be mentioned that not everyone prescribes
to the concept 'theory of mind'. I think PCT does away with much of it. If we
are controlling percwptions, why on earth .... would we attempt
to control.something that is not a perception? I think another persons
behavior either affects something we control or it does not. Why do we need
to theorize about anything? Wittgenstein did quite nicely away with this
with speech acts. Oliver

RM: Hi Oliver. I put your post together for you but I still don't
think I understand it. I know that not everyone "prescribes" (I think
you must mean something more like "accepts") the concept of "theory of
mind". But it's not it's popularity that intrigues me but rather (as I
said) the fact that it is about the fact that people tend to perceive
certain behavior as intentional (and other behavior as accidental).
People clearly do see certain behaviors as involving purpose or
intention (as per the Heider-Simmel demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZBKer6PMtM) . In fact, modern science
is based on showing that some behavior -- that of physical matter --
be explained rather well without including intention. Objects don't
fall to earth because they intend to get there.

Theory of mind is not really a theory so much as a description of the
fact that we do perceive behavior as intentional, the implication
being that at least some behavior -- the behavior of living things
like people -- _is_ intentional (or purposeful). Either that or theory
of mind is about the fact that we mistakenly see behavior as
purposeful because, as per the basic model of behavior in psychology,
it's just cause-effect like everything else.

So that's really the heart of my interest in theory of mind; it's a
theory that says we perceive behavior as intentional (purposeful) --
which we clearly do -- without any explanation of what intentional
behavior is. Indeed, its a theory that says we perceive something
(intentionality) whose existence many of those proposing the theory
would deny.

I don't think PCT does away with "theory of mind"; it seems to me that
PCT helps theory of mind by showing what intentional behavior is
(control of perception) and how to tell whether or not a particular
behavior is intentional and, if so, what intention is being carried
out (using the test for the controlled variable).

Have you tried the demo? (at
Detection of Intention). If so, what do
you think?

Best

Rick

···

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Oliver <oliver.s@telia.com> wrote:
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

9

(gavin Ritz
2011.11.21.9.34NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2011.11.20.0720 MST)]

gavin
Ritz 2011.11.20.18.04NZT –

GR:… PCT says that we control electromagnetic forces. That
is a big deal!!! Apparently.

RM: One of those

implications is demonstrated in my “Detection of Purpose” demo. Have

you tried it? If so, what did you think?

GR: don’t think so. Didn’t think you
would have any interest in what my opinions are.

RM: That’s what we’ve been discussing on CSGNet for the last 20+

years: the implications of the fact that behavior is the control of

perception.

GR: Really, so there u go, behaviour is the
control of electromagnetic forces.

You seem to be equating perception and “electromagnetic forces.”
That’s not how I understand perception. Can you explain what you mean?

It’s
not how I understand perception either, but this is what the theory says (PCT)
and physics and chemistry and biology.

All senses
fall into electromagnetic forces region. (physics, chemistry and biology). One
of the fundamental forces of science.

PCT says
we control our sensory inputs.

Therefore
we control electromagnetic forces. (obviously within limits of the particular organism).

Gavin

10

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.21.9.55NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2011.11.20.1220)]

I don’t think PCT does away with “theory of mind”;

GR: PCT kills the theory
of mind totally. There is no hope of reconciliation, why would one want to mix
a steam engine with a jet.

it seems to me that

PCT helps theory of mind by showing what intentional

GR: Intension is just a qualitative
take on in-tensions, what electromagnetic forces are all about (makes no (difference
if it’s inside your body, your nervous system).

PCT has already proved that
with the control system model.

behavior is

(control of perception) and how to tell whether or not
a particular

behavior is intentional and, if so, what intention is
being carried

out (using the test for the controlled variable).

GR: all the controlled variable
is that which is being controlled for (electromagnetic forces).

You are just opaque-d by
your own field which is psychology. Matter to matter communication is described
by science by the four fundamental forces.

Any other forces are
voodoo. Unless you’ve solved for the GUT.

I don’t get what you
are trying to achieve, what proposition are you trying to prove.

Gavin

···
11

[From Rick Marken (2011.11.20.1340)]

gavin Ritz (2011.11.21.9.34NZT)--

GR: Really, so there u go, behaviour is the control of electromagnetic
forces.

BP: You seem to be equating perception and "electromagnetic forces." That's not
how I understand perception. Can you explain what you mean?

GR: It�s not how I understand perception either, but this is what the theory
says (PCT) and physics and chemistry and biology

RM: Maybe you'd better explain how you understand perception. I think
I understand what perception is in PCT and it certainly mean
"electromagnetic forces."

GR: PCT says we control our sensory inputs.

RM: Ah, there's your problem. PCT says we control perceptions which
are _functions_ of sensory input. We do not control our sensory
inputs; we control perceptual functions of those inputs.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

12

[From Rick Marken (2011.11.20.1400)]

Gavin Ritz (2011.11.21.9.55NZT)

RM: I don't think PCT does away with "theory of mind";

GR: PCT kills the theory of mind totally.

RM: From what I'm reading about "theory of mind" it is really no more
than a description of the fact that people can (and often do) perceive
intention in human action. Seems pretty consistent with PCT to me in
the sense that PCT says that we can perceive intentionality; it's
probably a program level perception. We see organisms carrying out a
program of actions that appear to be aimed at producing a particular
end result.

GR: Intension is just a qualitative take on in-tensions

RM: I think theory of mind is about intentions (which are like
purposes) rather than intensions (which seem to be about meanings).

GR: all the controlled variable is that which is being controlled for
(electromagnetic forces).

RM: Well, controlled variables are _functions_ of sensory effects of
electromagnetic forces, perhaps, but still they are very important for
an understanding of the nature of intention since controlled variables
are the intended results of actions.

GR: I don�t get what you are trying to achieve, what proposition are you trying
to prove.

I don't really know how to make it clearer. What I'm trying to show
(not prove) is all in my demo:
Detection of Intention. The idea is
that, as per "theory of mind" one can see three squares intending to
follow the littlest square. The behavior of all three "following"
squares appears to be intentional. But, in fact, the behavior on only
one square (at a time) is _really_ intentional in the sense that it is
controlling for being behind the littlest square, a fact that becomes
apparent only when the paths of all three squares are disturbed using
the mouse. The disturbance effectively changes the path of the
_non-intentional_ squares but has little or no effect on the following
path being traced out by the controlling square.

What this means, I guess, is that, as per theory of mind, people _do_
perceive intentionality in behavior, but this perception is often an
illusion; the only way to tell whether or not a particular behavior is
intentional is to test for controlled variables. I guess what this
also means is that there really _is_ intentional behavior and it can
be distinguished from non-intentional behavior using TheTest.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

13

[From Rick Marken (2011.11.20.1405)]

Correction to earlier post: I said (to GR):

RM: Maybe you'd better explain how you understand perception. I think
I understand what perception is in PCT and it certainly mean
"electromagnetic forces."

Of course, what I meant to say (type) was:

RM: Maybe you'd better explain how you understand perception. I think
I understand what perception is in PCT and it certainly _doesn't_ mean
"electromagnetic forces."

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

14

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.21.11.6NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2011.11.20.1340)]

gavin Ritz (2011.11.21.9.34NZT)–

RM: Ah, there’s your problem. PCT says we control
perceptions which

are functions of sensory input. We do not control
our sensory

inputs; we control perceptual functions of those
inputs.

GR: can you please explain
to me how functions are variables, this is what you are saying, from my understanding
of this sentence?

I would like to see a
mathematical notation of this statement above please, “functions are variables”.

GR

15

(gavin Ritz 2011.11.21.11.45NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2011.11.20.1405)]

Correction to earlier post: I said (to GR):

RM: Maybe you’d better explain how you understand
perception. I think

I understand what perception is in PCT and it
certainly mean

“electromagnetic forces.”

Of course, what I meant to say (type) was:

RM: Maybe you’d better explain how you understand
perception. I think

I understand what perception is in PCT and it
certainly doesn’t mean

“electromagnetic forces.”

GR: I will once you have
shown me how “functions are variables” mathematically.

16

[From Rick Marken (2011.11.20.1450)]

Gavin Ritz (2011.11.21.11.6NZT)

RM: Ah, there's your problem. PCT says we control perceptions which
are _functions_ of sensory input. We do not control our sensory
inputs; we control perceptual functions of those inputs.

GR: can you please explain to me how functions are variables, this is what
you are saying, from my understanding of this sentence?

RM: No, I'm saying that perceptions are variables (scalar variables,
pacem Martin Taylor) that are functions of sensory input variables
(that are typically arrays of scalar variables):

p = f(s1,s2,...sN)

And this seems to be consistent with what we know of the physiology.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

17

(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.21.9.55NZT)

[From Rick Marken (2011.11.20.1220)]

I don't think PCT does away with "theory of mind";

GR: PCT kills the theory of mind totally. There is no hope of
reconciliation, why would one want to mix a steam engine with a jet.

it seems to me that

PCT helps theory of mind by showing what intentional

GR: Intension is just a qualitative take on in-tensions, what
electromagnetic forces are all about (makes no (difference if it's inside
your body, your nervous system).

PCT has already proved that with the control system model.

behavior is

(control of perception) and how to tell whether or not a particular

behavior is intentional and, if so, what intention is being carried

out (using the test for the controlled variable).

GR: all the controlled variable is that which is being controlled for
(electromagnetic forces).

You are just opaque-d by your own field which is psychology. Matter to
matter communication is described by science by the four fundamental forces.

Any other forces are voodoo. Unless you've solved for the GUT.

I don't get what you are trying to achieve, what proposition are you trying
to prove.

Gavin

···

Sent from my LG phone
Gavin Ritz <garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ> wrote:

18

(gavin Ritz 2011.11.21.12.11NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2011.11.20.1450)]

Gavin Ritz (2011.11.21.11.6NZT)

RM: Ah, there’s your problem. PCT says we control
perceptions which

are functions of sensory input. We do not
control our sensory

inputs; we control perceptual functions of those
inputs.

GR: can you please explain to me how functions
are variables, this is what

you are saying, from my understanding of this
sentence?

RM: No, I’m saying that perceptions are variables
(scalar variables,

pacem Martin Taylor) that are
functions of sensory input variables

GR: Please explain this
"variables that are functions of input variables"
This is just a simplified declaration of your statement above. In mathematical
notion.

I don’t understand
this at all.

GR

19

[From Rick Marken (2011.11.20.1545)]

(gavin Ritz 2011.11.21.12.11NZT)

RM: No, I'm saying that perceptions are variables (scalar variables,
pacem� Martin Taylor) that are functions of sensory input variables

GR: Please explain this "variables that are functions of input variables"
This is just a simplified declaration of your statement above. In
mathematical notion.

I don�t understand this at all.

Maybe Bill will explain it to you. I'm going dancing with a perception
I call my wife.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

20

(gavin Ritz 2011.11.21.13.23NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2011.11.20.1545)]

(gavin Ritz 2011.11.21.12.11NZT)

RM: No, I’m saying that perceptions are variables
(scalar variables,

pacem Martin Taylor) that are
functions of sensory input variables

GR: Please explain this “variables that are
functions of input variables”

This is just a simplified declaration of your
statement above. In

mathematical notion.

I don’t understand this at all.

Maybe Bill will explain it to you. I’m going dancing with a perception

I call my wife.

GR: No please you explain
how a “variables that are functions”. I have never seen this before
in mathematics. I’m really keen to learn this.

Every statement in language
can be mathematically written, I want you to show me how you do this. With your
above statement.

You stated this not Bill,
so you show me how this is written in mathematical notation.

It should be pretty
simple to show mathematical notations for functions and variables.

GR