thorndyke etc. -Reply -Reply

[HANS_BLOM2]

[Hans Blom, 951102]

(Shannon Williams (951101) replying to (Hans Blom, 951101)

We seem to have a severe case of talking past each other...

Do you really think so? In my view, the cat was trying to solve a
problem; to gain control, one might say, over its situation. Then
suddenly, unexplainedly, the solution was there and, moreover, was
immediately recognized as such.

Then why did the cat not immediately recognize the solution the next
time it was placed in the box?

I tried to explain this in my mail, but obviously didn't make myself
clear. Note that there is a tremendous difference between observing
THAT you have solved a problem and knowing HOW you have solved that
problem. The first is easy, the second not quite.

A far more important event, I think, than "the door simply fell open
by itself".

"the door simply fell open by itself" could mean that "the cat did
not know why the door fell open".

This is not what I assumed the intended meaning was.

If what Bill says seems so strange to you, and if this is an
important point in your post, then maybe you could question Bill
about what he meant.

What Bill says isn't usually strange to me ;-). Although I may have
different opinions in some cases, normally I think that I understand
Bill quite well indeed.

This assumption shows Thorndyke's theoretical slant; he begins by
assuming that there must be something about the situation that is
causing the behaviors he sees: the basic S-R assumption.

Is this not natural?

Yes it is natural to see things based on our theoretical slant.

That is not what _I_ meant. I meant: isn't it natural to start with
one or more assumptions about the situation when you discover some-
thing new that you cannot explain yet?

Your point is valid, too, and I have stressed the same thing often in
previous posts of mine: we necessarily interpret the world in terms
of what is stored in our internal world-model. Glad you agree.

That is the whole point. Thorndyke was looking for S-R, and he
found it, and he was happy.

Thorndyke didn't _look for_ S-R. He _invented_ it. He made assump-
tions about the situation in terms of things he already knew, far
before control theory was invented. You cannot blame him, I think,
for not having invented control theory on the spot. Although a super-
super-genius might have done so, maybe. But you can't blame people
for not being one.

And he could use S-R to predict the behavior of 1001 hungry, caged
cats, or hungry other animals. But what else can he predict with
it?

Is that a complaint? Every theory has its limited domain of applic-
ability. That is a fact that we seem to have to live with.

S-R describes a correlation between environment and behavior. But
correlation is not cause.

But _knowing_ a correlation can cause (or at least influence)
actions. See Bill's poker example...

If you cannot visualize a causal mechanism, then you delude yourself
if you think you hypothesize about cause.

And if you visualize a causal mechanism, you may be wrong.

What is worse is: a hypothesis that does not have a causal mechanism
is not subject to error. It is infallible.

Are you sure? How about quantum mechanics with its predictions that
are accurate to 1 part in 10^9 or better? What is the _cause_ that
everything is quantized?

Greetings,

Hans

[Bill_Leach1]

<[Bill Leach 951102.18:28 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[Hans Blom, 951102]

I probably should not post but rather wait and see what Shannon might
have for a response but then OTOH...

Hans:

Do you really think so? In my view, the cat was trying to solve a
problem; to gain control, one might say, over its situation. Then
suddenly, unexplainedly, the solution was there and, moreover, was
immediately recognized as such.

Shannon:

Then why did the cat not immediately recognize the solution the next
time it was placed in the box?

Hans:

I tried to explain this in my mail, but obviously didn't make myself
clear. Note that there is a tremendous difference between observing
THAT you have solved a problem and knowing HOW you have solved that
problem. The first is easy, the second not quite.

The problem is that your statement sounds as though you mean that the cat
was consciously aware "that a problem exists" and that the problem was
"solved". Much like Bill P., I doubt that the cat constructs any such
inferences.

If PCT is correct then it follows without question that the cat was
controlling some perceptions and probably trying to control others. The
very idea that the cat "recognized" any relationship between its' own
actions and the "solution" is I think, stretching things without some
rather extensive testing.

Hans:

A far more important event, I think, than "the door simply fell open
by itself".

Shannon:

"the door simply fell open by itself" could mean that "the cat did
not know why the door fell open".

Hans:

This is not what I assumed the intended meaning was.

You are possibly "by yourself" on this one. Since the mechanical
behaviour of the box itself was described and Bill P. is generally
considered to be a reasonably rational person, the meaning could have
been little else but what Shannon stated.

Shannon:

That is the whole point. Thorndyke was looking for S-R, and he

found it, and he was happy.

Hans:

Thorndyke didn't _look for_ S-R. He _invented_ it. ...

Hardly! Thorndike might have been the first to apply cause-effect to
psychology in a systematic way but he certainly did not invent the
cause-effect principle.

BTW, I don't happen to have a "low" opinion of Thorndike's work. Like
Freud, he considered some matters in a manner that was new. He made a
contribution but was not responsible for the failure of others that
followed him to analyze his work and his assumptions based upon knowledge
that developed after his efforts. He did not force others to ignore
formal control systems concepts.

Shannon:

And he could use S-R to predict the behavior of 1001 hungry, caged
cats, or hungry other animals. But what else can he predict with
it?

Hans:

Is that a complaint? Every theory has its limited domain of applic-
ability. That is a fact that we seem to have to live with.

Yes indeed, every theory has its' limits and good theoreticians avoid
generating "factual conclusions" when such are outside the theory's
domain... except in psychology. You may have a valid "complaint" against
Shannon on this one as the foregoing was only implied and not stated
explicitly.

Shannon:

S-R describes a correlation between environment and behavior. But
correlation is not cause.

Hans:

But _knowing_ a correlation can cause (or at least influence)
actions. See Bill's poker example...

ARG! The correlation does not _cause_ the action!!!! Yes, an active
control system "might behave differently" based upon knowledge of and
belief in the existence of a correlation but it definitely IS NOT the
existance of the correlation itself that "causes" the action to be such
as it is.

Shannon:

If you cannot visualize a causal mechanism, then you delude yourself
if you think you hypothesize about cause.

Hans:

And if you visualize a causal mechanism, you may be wrong.

"_may_" be wrong, yes indeed. However, what was said still stands as
strongly as ever. From a scientific standpoint, if you can not visualize
a causal mechanism then you ARE wrong to think that your hypothesis has a
causal foundation -- period!

Indeed, phlogiston was (it appears) WRONG as a causal mechanism but it was
"good science" since it was a defined causal mechanism and could be used
to make specific and _quantitative_ predictions. Since it was a "real"
theory it was then possible to demonstrate that it failed.

Shannon:

What is worse is: a hypothesis that does not have a causal mechanism
is not subject to error. It is infallible.

Hans:

Are you sure? How about quantum mechanics with its predictions that
are accurate to 1 part in 10^9 or better? What is the _cause_ that
everything is quantized?

Quantum theory does not pretend to theorize as to why quantized behaviour
exists. There are many that are quite dissatisfied with Quantum Theory
(and that includes the man that possibly contributed more to the theory
than any of its' proponents - Einstein). What is important though is
that the practitioners work very hard to determine the theory's limits.
In addition, much of the uncertainty of QT is based upon the ability (or
rather, inability) to acquire specific information. One of physics'
great "claims to fame" is the persistent demand to not say more than
should be said!

-bill