Tom Bourbon [941019.1301]
A self-correction for part of my reply:
Tom Bourbon [941019.1000]
to:
[Bruce Abbott (941018.1300 EST)]
in which I quoted Bruce:
================================
[From Bruce Abbott (941018.1030 EST)]
Bill Powers (941017.1030 MDT)
Bruce Abbott (941016.1530 EST)
Bruce:
I've actually WRITTEN programs that execute VI (and other) schedules
of reinforcement and collect the data, so if you like we can use one of
those as the basis for the environmental side of the simulation.Bill:
Wonderful. I'd like to see the programs. I can read the source code if
you email it to me (and Rick) or put it on the net. [TB -- I would alsolike to see it, and I can. You included it in your reply to Bill.]
Bruce:
Bill, I haven't fished out my old programs yet. Meanwhile, here is my version
of the simulation, complete with a VERY dumb pigeon. Both the pigeon and
schedule are modeled as constant-probability response generators.
Tom (blush) then:
You model the pigeon as a probabilistic response generator, rather than as a
control system. I had guessed you might use that kind of model, after
I read some of your earlier posts. I am not being critical. I am simply
trying to understand why I was "probing" you on what you thought about the
fact that, in a PCT model, behavior is driven by k(error), not by perception.
I did not have a clear idea about how you think behavior is generated. I
still don't. My problem, not yours.
"My problem," indeed! What I overlooked was the (glaringly) obvious fact
that you were suggesting that the _environment half_ of your earlier model
might be useful during the collaboration to build a PCT model for VI-VI
simulations. Forget that part of my post, please.
All of my other comments and questions remain in effect -- at least until I
discover my additional errors, later today.
Tom