[From Rick Marken (990302.1240)]
Walter Di Mantova (990302) --
This seems to me an example of tautology: the Eskimos may not
have a linguistic categories but, because we know they "do"
different things with "snow" they must perceive it differently?
Bruce Gregory (990302.1212 EST)--
Sure. If you can build an igloo without perceptual feedback you
have demonstrated that I am way off base.
This seems like it might be an interesting discussion. Could
either of you tell me what its about?
Thanks
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Bruce Gregory (990302.1625 EST)]
Rick Marken (990302.1240)
Walter Di Mantova (990302) --
> This seems to me an example of tautology: the Eskimos may not
> have a linguistic categories but, because we know they "do"
> different things with "snow" they must perceive it differently?
Bruce Gregory (990302.1212 EST)--
> Sure. If you can build an igloo without perceptual feedback you
> have demonstrated that I am way off base.
This seems like it might be an interesting discussion. Could
either of you tell me what its about?
I maintain that the ability to "do" something entails the existence of a
perceptual organization appropriate to the task at hand. Walter finds
this claim empty. He claims that perceptions can be controlled not by
individuals, but by the linguistic and cultural categories they carry
with them. I can't figure out how to model this process.
Bruce Gregory
[From Bruce Gregory (990303.2115 EST)]
For those interested in learning more about this (what seems to me to be)
interesting topic, does language have any role to play in perception or
are there some kinds of "absolutes" when it comes to perception? Is the
control in perceptual control a result of cultural conditioning?
Wonderful questions. Too bad you don't have the slightest idea of what you
are talking about. Is this often the case? Or are others impressed by your
facile wordplay? Come back when you understand the rudiments of control
theory, because at the moment you are obviously clueless.
Bruce Gregory
Funny, I don't remember saying this claim was empty; is my perception
faulted?
Are you assuming an individual who had perceptions but no linguistic or
cultural categories which mold these perceptions? Doesn't this put the
entire concept of learning in doubt?
The modelling of the process is, to my mind, developmental and not
static.
Walter Di Mantova, Chief Creative Engine and Dharma Thug
Idea Nation Creativity Consulting
1007 Arborview, Ann Arbor, MI 48103
734-930-1511
"What we need are more people who specialize in the impossible." --
Theodore Roethke
···
On Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:28:36 -0500 Bruce Gregory <bgregory@CFA.HARVARD.EDU> writes:
[From Bruce Gregory (990302.1625 EST)]
I maintain that the ability to "do" something entails the existence of
a
perceptual organization appropriate to the task at hand. Walter finds
this claim empty. He claims that perceptions can be controlled not by
individuals, but by the linguistic and cultural categories they carry
with them. I can't figure out how to model this process.
Bruce Gregory
[From Bruce Gregory (990303.1910 EST)]
Funny, I don't remember saying this claim was empty; is my perception
faulted?
Some people consider a tautology to be empty. Apparently you do not. What
exactly is the content of a tautology as far as you are concerned?
Are you assuming an individual who had perceptions but no linguistic or
cultural categories which mold these perceptions? Doesn't this put the
entire concept of learning in doubt?
Apparently you believe that only a species with language can learn. I don't
think many biologists would agree. I'm not a biologist, but having cats and
dogs, I don't agree either. The birds in our neighborhood seem to have
learned where the feeders are. Do you imagine that this required linguistic
ability?
The modeling of the process is, to my mind, developmental and not
static.
Now I would say that this statement is empty, albeit not tautologous.
Bruce Gregory
Richard:
I think we are discussing the connection between linguistic
categorization and perception.
I am new to BCT and PCT so I may have touched a beginners' point -- or a
critical point (I don't know). The ideas that Eskimos have more words for
snow makes many assumptions: that all Eskimos share these words (we have
literally thousands of words for the working parts of an automobile, but
I do not know them) ; that each is a discrete word (they are not); that
these linguistic categories mean that "snow" is very important to Eskimos
(as "love" is to Europeans or some such group).
I am arguing that it appears that "perceptual control" has been so
broadly defined that any action can be seen as evidence in support of the
theory behind this. Can anyone give a counterexample so that we do not
allow me to fall into a hole of "theory of everything"?
I'm just probing the edges of what this group is all about.
···
On Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:46:36 -0800 Richard Marken <rmarken@EARTHLINK.NET> writes:
[From Rick Marken (990302.1240)]
Walter Di Mantova (990302) --
This seems to me an example of tautology: the Eskimos may not
have a linguistic categories but, because we know they "do"
different things with "snow" they must perceive it differently?
Bruce Gregory (990302.1212 EST)--
Sure. If you can build an igloo without perceptual feedback you
have demonstrated that I am way off base.
This seems like it might be an interesting discussion. Could
either of you tell me what its about?
Thanks
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
Walter Di Mantova, Chief Creative Engine and Dharma Thug
Idea Nation Creativity Consulting
1007 Arborview, Ann Arbor, MI 48103
734-930-1511
"What we need are more people who specialize in the impossible." --
Theodore Roethke
Oh, now I understand! We are involved in the e-mail wordplay game that
I've come to call "net tennis". It works like this:
1. someone makes a statement and, in response, someone picks a phrase or
word from that statement and pulls it apart;
2. the person who made the original statement responds with another
statement or question or attempt at clarification;
3. the next statement is once again pulled apart;
4. the lists watches the match.
The result is cheap entertainment. masquerading as intellectual sport
My definition of tautology is certainly not of interest to those in this
e-group; nor, I think, is facile intellectual one-upsmanship. Or, my
favorite from the realm of creativity studies, "interesting pet tricks".
For those interested in learning more about this (what seems to me to be)
interesting topic, does language have any role to play in perception or
are there some kinds of "absolutes" when it comes to perception? Is the
control in perceptual control a result of cultural conditioning?
···
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999 19:12:28 -0500 Bruce Gregory <bruce_gregory@USA.NET> writes:
[From Bruce Gregory (990303.1910 EST)]
Funny, I don't remember saying this claim was empty; is my
perception
faulted?
Some people consider a tautology to be empty. Apparently you do not.
What
exactly is the content of a tautology as far as you are concerned?
Are you assuming an individual who had perceptions but no linguistic
or
cultural categories which mold these perceptions? Doesn't this put
the
entire concept of learning in doubt?
Apparently you believe that only a species with language can learn. I
don't
think many biologists would agree. I'm not a biologist, but having
cats and
dogs, I don't agree either. The birds in our neighborhood seem to
have
learned where the feeders are. Do you imagine that this required
linguistic
ability?
The modeling of the process is, to my mind, developmental and not
static.
Now I would say that this statement is empty, albeit not tautologous.
Bruce Gregory
Walter Di Mantova, Chief Creative Engine and Dharma Thug
Idea Nation Creativity Consulting
1007 Arborview, Ann Arbor, MI 48103
734-930-1511
"What we need are more people who specialize in the impossible." --
Theodore Roethke
from [ Marc Abrams (990305.0811) ]
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter D DiMantova <ditova1@JUNO.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list CSGNET <CSGNET@POSTOFFICE.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Whither Eskimo snow words
Hi Walter. Welcome to CSG. To make things easier to reference and archive,
every post to CSG should be headed with your name followed by
yr/mth/date.Time)
eg from above. From [Walter D. DiMantova (990303.1852)]
Dr. Appel, I would ask the same consideration from you.
Thanks.
Marc Abrams
2nd ass't to the 2nd archivist 
Dag, am I accurate in my titile?
Richard:
I think we are discussing the connection between linguistic
categorization and perception.
I am new to BCT and PCT so I may have touched a beginners' point -- or a
critical point (I don't know). The ideas that Eskimos have more words for
snow makes many assumptions: that all Eskimos share these words (we have
literally thousands of words for the working parts of an automobile, but
I do not know them) ; that each is a discrete word (they are not); that
these linguistic categories mean that "snow" is very important to Eskimos
(as "love" is to Europeans or some such group).
I am arguing that it appears that "perceptual control" has been so
broadly defined that any action can be seen as evidence in support of the
theory behind this. Can anyone give a counterexample so that we do not
allow me to fall into a hole of "theory of everything"?
I'm just probing the edges of what this group is all about.
On Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:46:36 -0800 Richard Marken <rmarken@EARTHLINK.NET> >writes:
[From Rick Marken (990302.1240)]
Walter Di Mantova (990302) --
This seems to me an example of tautology: the Eskimos may not
have a linguistic categories but, because we know they "do"
different things with "snow" they must perceive it differently?
Bruce Gregory (990302.1212 EST)--
Sure. If you can build an igloo without perceptual feedback you
have demonstrated that I am way off base.
This seems like it might be an interesting discussion. Could
either of you tell me what its about?
Thanks
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
Walter Di Mantova, Chief Creative Engine and Dharma Thug
Idea Nation Creativity Consulting
1007 Arborview, Ann Arbor, MI 48103
734-930-1511
"What we need are more people who specialize in the impossible." --
Theodore Roethke
[From Rick Marken (990304.0730)]
Walter D DiMantova (990303) --
I am arguing that it appears that "perceptual control" has been
so broadly defined that any action can be seen as evidence in
support of the theory behind this. Can anyone give a counterexample
so that we do not allow me to fall into a hole of "theory of
everything"?
Actions are not evidence in support of the theory. The existence
of controlled _results_ of actions are evidence in support of the
theory. The actions I use to type these words have many results:
pressure on my fingertips, clicking noises, circuits closing,
particular words and sentences on the screen, the concept I am
trying to communicate, etc. But only some of these results are
under control, the main one being (I hope) the concept I'm trying
to communicate. "Perceptual control" refers to the _fact_
that people act to keep some aspects of their experience under
control (brought to specific states and protected from the effects
of disturbance). Perceptual control theory (PCT) explains how
this is done.
I'm just probing the edges of what this group is all about.
I recommend that you start probing by learning perceptual
control theory (PCT) -- which is really just good old-
fashioned engineering control theory applied to the behavior
of living systems. A good place to start learning about PCT
is at the control systems group (CSG) web site:
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/csg/
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
