from [ Marc Abrams (2003.07.05.1626) ]
[Bryan Thalhammer (2003.07.06.1432)] Don't worry Bryan, you won't have to
put up with my crap any more. this is my final post to this list. As Bill
would say, good bye and good riddance.
This one is for the record kiddies & all those people out there. I've been
waiting for this post for a long time, thanks Rick. You have given me the
opportunity to, like Bill did in his last post, to show you how PCT/HPCT is
a nice metaphor and nothing more. It is a very _useful_ one, but a metaphor
none the less. The reason this is important is because if you recognize it
for what it is you can proceed to add the necessary details to make it work
physiologically and determine whether the metaphor is an accurate one or
needs any adjustment. I didn't think it could be done , But Rick you have
managed to convince me that this list is absolutely hopeless. I'm out of
here after this post so don't bother responding to me, although you might
want to for your big fan base out there.
[From Rick Marken (2003.07.06.1210)]
Start on p. 197. Definition is on p. 200.
What starts on Pg. 197? Bill's speculation on consciousness? Ah yes,
Awareness, Consciousness and Volition. The fact that Bill uses all of 4
pages to cover _all_ of those topics tells you a great deal about how
important thos e things were to behavior and the level of detail he went
into. The very first sentence is filled with metaphors. Lets take a look at
it;
"It would be greatly to an organism's advantage if the reorganizing system
could somehow avoid constructing positive feedback systems or unstable
negative feedback systems".
I count 3 metaphors; 'reorganizing system', 'positive feedback system', and
'negative feedback system'. Ok, lets see if Bill expalins the
interrelationships between the three. He equates his 'reorganization system'
to Wiener's Cybernetic 'adaptive control model' Weiner's model has all kinds
of nice control stuff in it. Lets go on to page 198;
"The main part in Wiener's diagram (adapted) goes though the compensator,
the adder, and the effector; [ Sounds absolutely wonderful, except what the
hell are these things? , yes they are parts of an an adaptive control model,
but are they also actual parts of a human?]this would represent a portion of
a control system, the portion that can be modified to assure stable negative
feedback. [ Gee, I wonder how cancer could ever happen, that's a positive
feedback loop ] A high frequency oscillator [ we know that neurons produce
_low_ frequency oscillations ] inserts ( via the adder ) an arbitrary test
stimulus that adds to the excitation of the effector. The high-pass filter
removes the arbitrary variations and ignores the slower variations caused by
signals originating in the compensator...."
Do I need to go on? I don't think so. Bill spends the next 3 pages
explaining Weiners adaptive control model and how it represents
reorganization in his model So Bill's reorganization notion is 55 years
old. Older then me. Thanks for pointing me to this page Rick, I almost
forgot about it.
Not once does Bill give you a clue as to how any of this actually takes
place in a human body. he talks as if it's all self evident that everyone
knows where their 'compensator' is and how it's attached to your 'adder',
which is attached to the effector, etc , etc. And Bill and Rick will look
you in the eye and tell you with a straight face that this model is not a
metaphor. Please.
This 4 page metaphor is not a 'definition' of consciousness or volition.
Bill speculated that the adaptive control system, which he says _is_ the
'reorganization system' and it's mere being causes and explains volition. He
'explains' these properties as 'speculation' as if the rest of his model
were built on a base of solid granite.
I don't buy it. Not for a minute.
> Where have you modeled
> or tested your ideas on memory, emotion, & consciousness?
The model of memory and consciousness is Chs. 14 and 15 of B:CP.
It has never been modeled. Those might be nice diagrams, but they have
_never_ been modeled. Nor have they been tested. Bill's memory model is
based on computer memory theory. We are fairly certain memory does _not_
work that way, We do not have an 'addressing system' like that of a
computer.
The model of emotion is described in LCS II starting on p. 31.
.> Bill describes observations that are consistent with the model.
Yes, consistent with the model but not with actual human behavior
Any relevant data can be used as a basis for
testing the model. If said you know of evidence that contradicts the PCT
model
of consciousness, memory and emotion. That's the evidence I'd like to see.
It's much more basic than that as I will show you right below with
'controlled variables'
> What is a controlled variable?
It's the same as what is called a "controlled quantity" in B:CP (see
definition
p. 283-284). This is very basic PCT. If you don't know what a controlled
variable is then I don't see how you can possibly criticize PCT in any
meaningful way.
Ok, Pg 283-284; We also need to have the definition of 'perception' as well
as 'physical quantity'
Controlled Quantity; An environmental variable corresponding to the
perceptual signal in a control system; a physical quanity ( or a function of
several physical quantities) that is affected and controlled by the outputs
from a control system's output function.
Perception; A perceptual signal ( inside the system ) that is a continuous
analogue of a state of affairs outside the system. See Physical Quantity
Physical Quantity, Phenomenon; A perception identified as part of a physical
model of external reality
Hmmm. First, we _know_ that 'perceptions' are not continuous, they only seem
that way.
2) The definitions above do not account for dreams, or thoughts as being
controlled. These definitions contradict your answers below. There is no
ambiguity to the definition of perception.
3), how do you solve the 'cross-modal' binding problem, that is, how do 3 or
more sensing modalities plus memory _combine_ to provide you with the _one_
perceptual signal for the hierarchy?
Who, why or how is that signal determined. How do we decide what to pay
attention to. We can only think of one thing at a time. We can switch like
crazy, but we can only have one thought in our heads at a time. Do we
'control' for a whole thought or just aspects of it? Do we control by
modality?
A perception is a nice metaphor for a lot of things. I'm not so sure we have
it nailed yet. A 'controlled varaiable' could be _anything_. Can some
aspects of our CV be uncontrollable while other aspects can be? How do we
know which is which?
Reading _all_ the PCT literature does not make any of these questions any
easier.
> You can't define it.
Actually, I can. A controlled variable is an environmental variable that
corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system.
See above.
> Is it one perception or a collection of perceptions?
It is one perception. Although, of course, there are many different
controlled
variables (and, thus, many different perceptions) that a living system
controls
at any one time.
See above
> What is a perception?
See p. 286 n B:CP. It's a perceptual signal (inside the system) that is a
continuous analog of a state of affairs outside the system. This is a
physiological definition of perception.
It's no definition, it's a metaphor for a perception
Of course. How else could you get awakened by an alarm clock, for example.
reflexive.
> When you 'view' a 'category'
> can you block out all the relationships and _not_ be aware of them?, or
do
> you see _everything_ about the object or, are you only aware of a
limited
> number of aspects at one time?
It seems to me that I can be aware at only one level at a time. So while
I'm
aware in terms of categories (those are "dogs") I am not aware in terms of
relationships (they are fighting).
I see, you can view 2 dogs fighting, hear the growling and barking yet only
be aware of the dogs, nothing else. My what extroadinary sensory receptors
you have. I personally have a difficult time blocking out any sensory input,
I can close my eyes, but I still have hearing. I can plug my ears and not
hear. I would have a difficult time not either tasting or smelling, I do
need to breath. But I'm sure you don't.
> Bill's physiological model does not work.
I don't know what this means. Have you seen the "Little Man" model? That
seems
to work pretty well.
Yes, the little man has no physiology. Maybe the little man is a relative of
yours. He seems to have some of your charateristics. 
We have gone round
and round with this. You believe a control system is isomorphic and
monomorphic with a human, I don't.
It's just the basic control process. A reference is set for having a
perception
of being told what was eaten last night. There is an error that leads to
action,
such as asking what was eaten for dinner last night. This will likely
lead, in a
cooperative person who remembers what was eaten last night, to the answer
"curried tofu".
Yes, all a very nice metaphor for some kind of control process.
> Bill's memory model doesn't fly either, for a number of reasons.
I don't suppose you plan to say what those reasons are?
Sure, memory is an integral part of the entire process of consciousness,
There are many theories out there, the model Bill has choosen, the
'computer' memory model is not one I ascribe to. Some people do. Some also
believe the earth is flat. I'm not suggesting the two are the same, just
stating the fact that people will believe what they want to believe.
Including you and me. Bil's model again is metaphoric, it does not relate in
any way to any real system in our brain or nervous system. I believe it has
to. If your comfortable with his ideas on memory, more power to you.
No. It means that I think only one variable is controlled by a control
loop. But
living systems are collections of many control loops, each loop
controlling a
different variable.
You really need to rethink this. As a metaphor it's ok, but it's not an
acceptable answer for a real system. Not for me anyway.
> How do you know what you are and are not 'controlling' for at any one
point in
> time?
I don't think people are particularly good at knowing what they are and
are not
controlling at any point in time, though I think they can determine what
they
are controlled by replaying references (goals) from memory and becoming
aware of
the desired perceptual state of the world.
Again Rick, how do you 'know' what 'goal' you were controlling for at any
particular time? We seem to have another fundamental difference in the
model. I believe 'controlling' _only_ takes place in the immediate time
period. _Everything_ else is imagined. _All_ of our plans are imagined, not
controlled. _All_ initiated motor actions are initiated by either emotions
and or reflexes. Once initiated things are quickly brought under control.
That does not mean that control is attained immediately, it means that the
feedback process begins at that point. That is what I currently think
happens. Of course, I may be wrong. From what I have seen so far I'm not.
Who knows what tomorrow brings.
> How do we know that our blood pressure is 'controlled'?
Stability in the face of disturbance. If blood pressure remains relatively
constant despite disturbances (such as loss of blood) then it's
controlled. I
actually don't know whether blood pressure per se is controlled or not.
Sure it is.Just like insulin and cholesteral & our bodies temperature. In
fact our whole endocrine system is one big control center. The thalamus is
supposed to be the main center of that control as well as place where the
binding of the sensory inputs in the brain take place. There are some
interesting stories here.
> How would you do the
> test on that? How would you do the test on your body's temperature?
Apply disturbances that should produce changes in the variable and see if
the
variable is protected from the disturbances.
I suggest you jump into a pool filled with Ice, stay there for 15 minutes
and see if your internal body temperature stays the same. We know it will
_until_ a critical point in time, then you start a _positive_ feedback loop.
The more you stay in the water the lower your body temperature goes, trying
to perserve as much warm blood for the heart and brain as possible, but if
the disturbance continues the blood will stop going to your extremities and
finally you will die. It's called hypothermia, perhaps you've heard of it.
If positive feedback can happen in one physiological system, why not in
another ( the brain ). What is someone controlling for when they lose it? I
mean totally lose it and say jump out of a window or kill someone.
What do you mean by "only"? No one assumes that the Test reveals the only
variable that an organism is controlling. Organisms control many (probably
thousands) of variables simultaneously. The Test reveals the controlled
variables that underlie a particular behavior of interest, such a pointing
or
catching fly balls.
And I say that even those mundane tasks require thousands of coordinated
'control systems'. What your testing for is whether the tested person
_might_ be controlling for something the _observer_ wants to know and since
no people have the same exact definition and experience behind any meaning
how do you validate the test?
> Since what we control is not continuous a person could start out
> controlling one thing and wind up controlling something else at the end.
> Which one becomes the 'controlled' variable?
Whatever variables are controlled at any particular time are controlled
variables. Just because I'm not currently controlling the vertical optical
velocity of a ball doesn't mean that that's not the variable that is
controlled
when I catch fly balls.
That is certainly true, but does not address the question. Could someone
_change_ what they are controlling for _during_ the Test? I think so. If so,
which variable were they controlling for during the Test?
It's not a physiological slant.
Yes, I know. How do you explain Chap 12 in B:CP The Brains Model, I suggest
you re-read it. Bill has some very definite ideas on how the brain actually
functions with regard to his model. Throw in Chap. 9 and the diagram on pg
117 and I would say Bill had done a pretty thorough job of trying to relate
his model to physiology. Some of his ideas are not bad, but they need some
updating.
Control is carried out by the nervous system via
the muscles and glands. Many of the lower level control loops (like the
spinal
motor loop shown on p.81) are well mapped out. The model is a model of how
the
nervous system exerts this control.
No, it's ametaphor for how the nervous system exerts control. A theoretical
metaphor to boot. I actually think it's a damned good one.
Not really. The model was never metaphoric. Each component of the model
corresponds to a physiological or physical variable.
See! I told you he can look you in the eye and tell you with a straight face
that the model is not a metaphor. Fine, it's not ametaphor. Excuse me while
I reorganize and make sure my compensator is hooked up properly to my adder
and my adder can talk to my effector so I can continue with this post.
Phew. I'm glad it was all in order, reorganization was fun. I think it was
the adder that provided that extra kick.
It's already been tied rather nicely to nervous system function. If you
think
you can do a better job of tying it to nervous system function based on
new
findings then great; go ahead and show an improved tie. I'd love to see
it. But
I think you're bluffing. I think you don't understand PCT at all, you are
mad
about your failure and you have decided to take the offensive and blame
PCT.
HA HA HA HA HA. Think about what you just said. I am angry because of my
failure to do what? Your right of course. I am bluffing. This all came to me
while I was on the crapper. it took about 15 minutes to dream this all up.
Boy do I _hate_ PCT. Ha HA HA HA I survived Nam, A heart attack, a triple
By-pass, and assorted other crap. I have reinvented myself at the age of 52
and you think I'm angry at PCT. Ha Ha Ha Ha I'm thankful for every day I get
to see the sun come up and then go down ( metaphoriclly speaking of course )
I don't have the desire, time, or energy to spend hours dealing with this
kind of nonsense, I got things to do. that's why I'm leaving this list. It's
a waste of my time. Probably the same reason everyone else has left this
list.
Be careful. Remember how wrong you turned out to be about PCT. If I were
you I
would now be _very_ suspicious of my own instincts.
HA HA HA HA HA HA
I think you have now told more lies about PCT than Bush has told about,
well,
everything. Learning is handled by the model. To see how, read Chapter 14
("Learning") in B:CP.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ha. Sorry you must have meant Clinton.
> What's reorganization? How does that look physiologically? Another
metaphor.
> reorganization is in the same realm with consciousness as far as the PCT
> model is concerned. Some floating entity. tell me how it's wired please.
Don't know.
_THE FIRST HONEST ANSWER TO THIS POST_
> How do we Test for reorganization?
See paper by Robertson and Glines in Psychological Reports, about 1986.
I did. HA HA HA HA HA HA
> Can you model it?
Yes.
I can model anything to look like a stimulaus- response model. I bet you can
too . HA HA HA HA HA
I just can't see how it can make a difference that is relevant to the
controlling done by the model. But maybe I'm missing something. Could you
show
me how this intrinsic control of cell variables would affect the behavior
of a
simple tracking model, for example?
Sure, but i'm not going to waste my time.
OK. But forgive me if I don't just take your word for it. I'd like to see
how it
makes a difference.
Be my guest. good luck in your search Ha HA HA HA HA
Bye Bye Ha Ha HA HA Ha Ha
No matter how implausable the argument,