to Rick

Blank
From [ Marc Abrams (2003.07.04.2228) ]

From Topobiology: An Introduction to Molecular Embryology by Dr. Gerald M. Edelman. 1988 BasicBooks. He received the Nobel prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1972. He was ( might still be ) the Chairman of the Department of Neurobiology at the Scripps Research Institute.

Preface, pg xiv

“… A case will be made here that the models and mechanisms of cell differentiation studied by current molecular biology are insufficient to explain such epigenetic events. My thesis is that surface interactions mediated by molecules of a very specific type that I call morphoregulatory molecules provide a sufficient basis for epigenisis. Expression of such molecules leads to changes in cell shape and movement, to cell associations with other cells, and to new forms of regulation of gene expression. One of the chief tasks of molecular embryology is to describe how various chemical signals alter the expression and function of morphoregulatory molecules…”

Translated;

Edelman developed a theory of CONTROL ( i.e regulation in biospeak ) for ALL LIVING CELLS. He subsequently wrote 4 more books on the biological basis for mind. Edelman’s work is the foundation for much work being done in neuroscience today. Yes Rick, people in Neuroscience actually know about control. Ain’t that something, and here you thought you were alone in the woods. You’ve got plenty of company. It’s just not in the field of psychology. But psychology, as it is taught today is a bogus science anyway. In psychology, without a background in neuroscience is like a chemist without a background or understanding of physics. It’s almost as bad as having a model of behavior that does not include consciousness ( btw, have you ever seen anyone behave who was not conscious ) memory, and emotion INTEGRATED into the model. But don’t worry, your not alone. The Cog sci people are of computing and the behaviorists are off denying anything like consciousness can be ‘scientifically’ looked at. You’re in good company.

Of course Rick, Your 25 years of modeling completely negates anything this Nobel Prize winner might have come up with. PCT is flawless, not a blemish. Revising it? Poppycock. Even the old sage Isaac K. says it doesn’t need it. You just need more models of control systems. To bad people do other things besides tracking tasks. So my advice to you Rick is do more models, don’t read anything outside of psychology, and most important, don’t dare expose yourself to someone else’s work, writing or thinking, I don’t think your heart could take it.

btw, the list is down to 96. Who might that have been? By the end of the evening it will be down to 95. We seem to be dropping like flies.

Marc

(Attachment Blank Bkgrd37.gif is missing)

[From Rick Marken (2003.07.04.2315)]

Marc Abrams (2003.07.04.2228) -- From _Topobiology: An Introduction to
Molecular Embryology_ by Dr. Gerald M. Edelman. 1988 BasicBooks. He
received the Nobel prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1972. He was (
might still be ) the Chairman of the Department of Neurobiology at the
Scripps Research Institute. Preface, pg xiv "... A case will be made
here that the models and mechanisms of cell differentiation studied by
current molecular biology are insufficient to explain such epigenetic
events. My thesis is that surface interactions mediated by molecules
of a very specific type that I call morphoregulatory molecules provide
a sufficient basis for epigenisis. Expression of such molecules leads
to changes in cell shape and movement, to cell associations with other
cells, and to new forms of regulation of gene expression. One of the
chief tasks of molecular embryology is to describe how various
chemical signals alter the expression and function of morphoregulatory
molecules...." Translated; Edelman developed a theory of _CONTROL_ (
i.e regulation in biospeak ) for _ALL LIVING CELLS_. He subsequently
wrote 4 more books on the biological basis for mind. Edelman's work is
the foundation for much work being done in neuroscience today.Yes
Rick, people in Neuroscience actually know about control.

Again, thanks, Marc. This explains a lot.

btw, the list is down to 96. Who might that have been? Maybe it was

the people who didn't like Bill Powers' (2003.07.04.0851 MDT) elegant
proposal for some experiments on emotion. Why do research when there's
all that Nobel prize winning physiology to read?

Best

Rick--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[From Rick Marken (2003.07.05.0940)]

Marc Abrams (2003.07.05.1010)--

> Rick Marken (2003.07.04.2315)

> Again, thanks, Marc. This explains a lot.

You are really a prize. You reject any notions out of hand. You don't know
his work, you don't have a clue as to what he's saying, yet you refuse to
acknowledge that anything he has done or said might be of benefit to you.

You posted the following quote from Edelman's _Topobiology: An Introduction
to Molecular Embryology_ in order to show me that I should read it.

"... A case will be made here that the models and mechanisms of cell
differentiation studied by current molecular biology are insufficient to
explain such epigenetic events. My thesis is that surface interactions
mediated by molecules of a very specific type that I call morphoregulatory
molecules provide a sufficient basis for epigenisis. Expression of such
molecules leads to changes in cell shape and movement, to cell associations
with other cells, and to new forms of regulation of gene expression. One of
the chief tasks of molecular embryology is to describe how various chemical
signals alter the expression and function of morphoregulatory molecules...."

I really do thank you for posting this since this kind of thing helps me
decide how I should allocate my time. The quote strongly suggests (to me)
that Edelman does not know what "control" is or how it works and that it
would, therefore, just be a frustrating waste of time to read him. This is
particularly clear in the last two sentences which suggest that Edelman views
regulation (control) as a causal process: regulation of gene expression is
said to be done by "molecules" and "chemical signals" that lead to (cause)
changes in cell shape, movement and association that (I presume) result in
properly expressed genes. This strongly suggests that Edelman is going to
describe a causal model of genetic expression, with molecules and signals
causing just the right changes in the cells at just the right time. If
Edelman were describing a control approach to epigenesis, I would think that
"error" or "discrepancy" reduction would receive prominent mention in his
preface.

Some time ago, Bill Powers found some work on closed loop chemical processes
that was done by some Japanese researchers. Maybe he'll describe some of that
briefly on the net. Also, a fellow (I forgot his name) gave a talk on closed
loop chemical processes at the 1994 CSG Conference in Wales. And these were
in _inorganic_ chemical substrates. I think chemical control is a very
interesting topic. But based on what I've read it doesn't look like Edelman
has much, in terms of either models or research, to contribute to my
understanding of chemical control.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.07.05.1010) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.07.04.2315)]

Again, thanks, Marc. This explains a lot.
> btw, the list is down to 96. Who might that have been? Maybe it was
the people who didn't like Bill Powers' (2003.07.04.0851 MDT) elegant
proposal for some experiments on emotion. Why do research when there's
all that Nobel prize winning physiology to read?

You are really a prize. You reject any notions out of hand. You don't know
his work, you don't have a clue as to what he's saying, yet you refuse to
acknowledge that anything he has done or said might be of benefit to you.
You might be a modeler, but ain't no scientist. I don't care who you work
for or what you do.

Have a good one.

Marc

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.07.05.1319) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.07.05.0940)]

This strongly suggests that Edelman is going to
describe a causal model of genetic expression, with molecules and signals
causing just the right changes in the cells at just the right time.

Wrong.

It suggests that a control process is intrinsic in the process. He then goes
on to explain how that control takes place. Of course Edelamn does not
descibe it this way. Just like you don't describe how warm you feel by
stating the Mean kinetic molecular energy of the air. He describes the
'process'and calls it regulation. Regulation Rick in biospeak is
homeostasis. It _IS_ control. It's unfortunate you don't understand this
basic idea. Not everyone speaks engineerese. Oh well, your loss. Actually
Edelman is not the best initial one to read. I love both Llinas and Fuster's
books, both of which are heavily based on the pioneering work of Edelman.

If Edelman were describing a control approach to epigenesis, I would think

that

"error" or "discrepancy" reduction would receive prominent mention in his
preface.

You say you don't use metaphor. BS. What the hell is an 'error' signal? The
fact that he says the process _is_ a regulated one is the tip off. He
doesn't need to describe it in 'engineering' terms. He's a molecular
biologist, not an engineer. Get over it.

Some time ago, Bill Powers found some work on closed loop chemical

processes

that was done by some Japanese researchers. Maybe he'll describe some of

that

briefly on the net. Also, a fellow (I forgot his name) gave a talk on

closed

loop chemical processes at the 1994 CSG Conference in Wales. And these

were

in _inorganic_ chemical substrates. I think chemical control is a very
interesting topic. But based on what I've read it doesn't look like

Edelman

has much, in terms of either models or research, to contribute to my
understanding of chemical control.

You are hopeless. Forget I even brought this stuff up. You're way in over
your head already. Edelman couldn't possibly help you at all because he is
concerned with the process of epigenesis in cells, not control per se. My
main point has been and continues to be that 'control' is all around you.
It's being investigated, and utilized in lots and lots of research, not only
chemical, but in neuroscience, biology, and physiology, even if you can't
and won't recognize it as such. It's a shame, you really don't have a clue.

Marc

[From Bill Powers (2003.07.05.1609 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2003.07.05.0940) --

Some time ago, Bill Powers found some work on closed loop chemical processes

that was done by some Japanese researchers.

The book was "Dynamics of Enzyme Systems" by Hayashi and Sakamoto. It was
all about modeling biochemical systems. The particular model I found
interesting involved an allosteric enzyme which acted as a combined
comparator and output function to keep one chemical concentration equal to
another which served as the reference signal. The loop gain was very high
and control was very accurate and fast.

Also, a fellow (I forgot his name) gave a talk on closed
loop chemical processes at the 1994 CSG Conference in Wales.

That was Pedro Mendes, of the University of Aberystwyth, who wrote a
simulation program for biochemical systems (Gepasi, free on the Web), and
kindly set up an analysis of the allosteric enzyme system for me, showing
how the output concentration would follow a step-change in the reference
concentration. Unfortunately he was not very interested in that aspect of
control, being more fascinated by the initial transient changes in
concentrations when the system was started far from equilibrium.

And these were in _inorganic_ chemical substrates.

No, they were all organic chemicals found in organisms.

I think chemical control is a very
interesting topic. But based on what I've read it doesn't look like Edelman
has much, in terms of either models or research, to contribute to my
understanding of chemical control.

Edelman has no understanding of the principle of negative feedback control
at all, as near as I can tell. I wrote to him once about a model he
proposed for sailing a boat across a current, pointing out that negative
feedback would accomplish the task far more simply than the system he
proposed (the same old compute-and-execute model). He did not appreciate my
comment and basically told me I was full of crap. His approach is that of
old-fashioned physics, and fortunately for him, the Nobel committee also
uses that approach. I haven't seen Edelman use any simulations. Maybe he's
so smart that he can work everything out in his head.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2003.07.05.1625)]

Marc Abrams (2003.07.05.1319) --

> Rick Marken (2003.07.05.0940)--

> This strongly suggests that Edelman is going to
> describe a causal model of genetic expression, with molecules and signals
> causing just the right changes in the cells at just the right time.

Wrong

It suggests that a control process is intrinsic in the process.

Saying it is intrinsic says nothing about how the process works. This is "hand
waving", and a rather cursory wave at that. What serves as the reference? How
is the controlled variable represented? What does the comparison? What
amplifies the error into an output? What are the disturbances to the state of
the controlled variable?

He then goes on to explain how that control takes place.

Great. Why not post his model?

Of course Edelamn does not
descibe it this way....He describes the
'process'and calls it regulation. Regulation Rick in biospeak is
homeostasis. It _IS_ control.

Great. Does he describe experiments that showing the variable that's under
control?

>If Edelman were describing a control approach to epigenesis, I would think
> that "error" or "discrepancy" reduction would receive prominent mention in
his
> preface.

You say you don't use metaphor. BS. What the hell is an 'error' signal?

Read B:CP. An error signal is the difference between the reference and
perceived state of the controlled

> Some time ago, Bill Powers found some work on closed loop chemical
> processes that was done by some Japanese researchers.... And these were
> in _inorganic_ chemical substrates. I think chemical control is a very
> interesting topic. But based on what I've read it doesn't look like Edelman

> has much, in terms of either models or research, to contribute to my
> understanding of chemical control.

You are hopeless.

Well, I might not be completely hopeless. At least Bill Powers (2003.07.05.1609
MDT) thinks there's some hope since he was willing to set me straight about
their being organic chemicals.

You're way in over your head already.

Probably. I'm better with behavioral control systems.

It's a shame, you really don't have a clue.

Sure nice to have you helping out.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.07.05.1939) ]

[From Bill Powers (2003.07.05.1609 MDT)]

Edelman has no understanding of the principle of negative feedback control
at all,

No he doesn't. His neuronal network model and selectionism are extremely
useful. Fuster and Llinas both introduced feedback into Edelman's network
model. Fuster even introduces a discriminatory hierarchy into Edelman's
network model. In my posts to rick I told him that I would not even
recommend Edelman as the primary read. I suggested Llinas and stand by that
claim. Edelmans' network model is useful to understand as a basis for the
work of both Llinas and Fuster.

as near as I can tell. I wrote to him once about a model he
proposed for sailing a boat across a current, pointing out that negative
feedback would accomplish the task far more simply than the system he
proposed (the same old compute-and-execute model).

Compute and execute. Interesting, Let me see if I get this right. If a
frequency or chemical concentration is 'compared' ( that is 'computed' ) to
an existing concentration or frequency and a certain ratio exists, and
because of a particular ratio certain things happen & continue to happen as
the ratio's are sampled every x amount of time. That is a compute and
execute? If so, I guess I'm a compute and execute type of guy. Son-
of-a-gun. Thanks for straightening me out Bill. I thought that was feedback
taking place. Live and learn.

He did not appreciate my comment and basically told me I was full of crap.

His approach is that of

old-fashioned physics, and fortunately for him, the Nobel committee also
uses that approach. I haven't seen Edelman use any simulations. Maybe he's
so smart that he can work everything out in his head.

When you find your;

Comparator
reference signal
error signal
input function
output function
various levels of a hierarchy

in something _other_ than a computer model. Give me a ring, otherwise you
shouldn't throw stones at others. You got nothing over on anyone. Nothing.

Marc