William James Quote

CSGnet Archive CSG2006
1

[From Rick Marken (2006.07.02.0900)]

In my introduction to the ABS Special Issue on PCT (published in 1990) I quoted the following passage from WIlliam James' _Principles of Psychology_:

Romeo wants Juliet as filings want a magnet; and if no obstacles intervene he moves toward her by as straight a line as they. But Romeo and Juliet, if a wall be built between them, do not remain idiotically pressing their faces against its opposite sides like the magnet and the filings with the [obstructing] card. Romeo soon finds a circuitous way, by scaling the wall or otherwise, of touching Juliet's lips directly. With the filings the path is fixed; whether it reaches the end depends on accidents. With the lover it is the end which is fixed, the path may be modified indefinitely. (James, 1890, p. 7)

I found this quote in a copy of James' _Principles_ that I had recently bought from a local used bookstore. It seemed absolutely perfect for the paper I was writing at the time (back in 1990) because it gives a nice description of the difference between purposeful and purposeless (caused) behavior.

I had never seen this quote anywhere else before. So I was quite surprised to find it in Steven Pinker's 1999 best seller on Cognitive Science called "How the Mind Works". I've been reading Pinker's book because I am considering using it as a text for my cognition course. I think it's a excellent book, by the way; very well written and quite interesting. Pinker used the James quote to illustrate what he considers one of the two properties of intelligence: goal orientation.

I wrote to Pinker to ask where he got the quote (and to praise him for the book). He said he thinks he got it from the introductory psych text he uses (by Gray) so I'll take a look at that. I know that Gary Cziko used the quote in "Without Miracles" and I thought that perhaps Pinker got the quote from there (given his interest in evolutionary psychology) but apparently not.

So I am on a little mission now to find out who else used this quote from James and from whence they got it. It's possible that some of those who have used the quote got it directly from James' "_Principles_ text (as I did). We'll see. What I would really like to know is whether some people got it from my ABS paper. If so, it would mean that some people are actually reading my work, which would be nice, even if all they get out of it is quotes from William James;-)

By the way, rfter reading "How the Mind Works" makes me wish that Pinker had gotten interested in control (rather than evolutionary) psychology. He is one heck of a smart guy and a really excellent writer. If "How the Mind Works" had been based on control theory (rather than the computational model of mind) we all be drinkin' that green Bubble Up and eatin' that rainbow stew;-)

Best regards

RIck

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

2

[Jim Dundon 07.02.06.1240edt]

[From Rick Marken (2006.07.02.0900)]

In my introduction to the ABS Special Issue on PCT (published in 1990) I quoted the following passage from WIlliam James' _Principles of Psychology_:

Romeo wants Juliet as filings want a magnet; and if no obstacles intervene he moves toward her by as straight a line as they. But Romeo and Juliet, if a wall be built between them, do not remain idiotically pressing their faces against its opposite sides like the magnet and the filings with the [obstructing] card. Romeo soon finds a circuitous way, by scaling the wall or otherwise, of touching Juliet's lips directly. With the filings the path is fixed; whether it reaches the end depends on accidents. With the lover it is the end which is fixed, the path may be modified indefinitely. (James, 1890, p. 7pm

Is this efficiency relative to the goal?
Might it still be said he went straightaway [as efficiently as possible] to her with
zero deviation from the goal subordinating all subgoals such as hand and foot placement
to the primary one.
Could it be said that he did not go as efficiently as possible and but simultaneously maintained the goal as primary?

···

I found this quote in a copy of James' _Principles_ that I had recently bought from a local used bookstore. It seemed absolutely perfect for the paper I was writing at the time (back in 1990) because it gives a nice description of the difference between purposeful and purposeless (caused) behavior.

I had never seen this quote anywhere else before. So I was quite surprised to find it in Steven Pinker's 1999 best seller on Cognitive Science called "How the Mind Works". I've been reading Pinker's book because I am considering using it as a text for my cognition course. I think it's a excellent book, by the way; very well written and quite interesting. Pinker used the James quote to illustrate what he considers one of the two properties of intelligence: goal orientation.

I wrote to Pinker to ask where he got the quote (and to praise him for the book). He said he thinks he got it from the introductory psych text he uses (by Gray) so I'll take a look at that. I know that Gary Cziko used the quote in "Without Miracles" and I thought that perhaps Pinker got the quote from there (given his interest in evolutionary psychology) but apparently not.

So I am on a little mission now to find out who else used this quote from James and from whence they got it. It's possible that some of those who have used the quote got it directly from James' "_Principles_ text (as I did). We'll see. What I would really like to know is whether some people got it from my ABS paper. If so, it would mean that some people are actually reading my work, which would be nice, even if all they get out of it is quotes from William James;-)

By the way, rfter reading "How the Mind Works" makes me wish that Pinker had gotten interested in control (rather than evolutionary) psychology. He is one heck of a smart guy and a really excellent writer. If "How the Mind Works" had been based on control theory (rather than the computational model of mind) we all be drinkin' that green Bubble Up and eatin' that rainbow stew;-)

Best regards

RIck
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

3

[From Rick Marken (2006.07.02.1100)]

Jim Dundon( 07.02.06.1240edt)

Romeo wants Juliet as filings want a magnet; and if no obstacles intervene he moves toward her by as straight a line as they. But Romeo and Juliet, if a wall be built between them, do not remain idiotically pressing their faces against its opposite sides like the magnet and the filings with the [obstructing] card. Romeo soon finds a circuitous way, by scaling the wall or otherwise, of touching Juliet's lips directly. With the filings the path is fixed; whether it reaches the end depends on accidents. With the lover it is the end which is fixed, the path may be modified indefinitely. (James, 1890, p. 7pm

Is this efficiency relative to the goal?

I don't think so. The main point James is making is that a purposeful agent will vary its actions in order to try to produce a preselected result (goal) while a purposeless agent won't. The actions taken by a purposeful agent might and might not produce the goal result (in Romeo's case these actions produced the goal only occasionally -- on the balcony, after the wedding, etc -- but ultimately failed to produce a life with Juliet in the end). So I don't think efficiency is a consideration in this quote -- or in purposeful behavior in general. A purposeful agent may have learned to produce a goal using actions that are quite inefficient -- that is, actions that require more time and energy than others that would be just as successful at producing the goal result. An agent will keep using inefficient actions (inefficient from an observer's perspective, of course) as long as those actions work (produce the goal result).

Might it still be said he went straightaway [as efficiently as possible] to her with
zero deviation from the goal subordinating all subgoals such as hand and foot placement
to the primary one.

Yes, but the hand and foot movements that actually get Romeo around the obstacles and to the goals are not necessarily those that, by some external criterion of efficiency, such as least time or energy, are the most efficient. For example, Romeo may not use the most time efficient wall scaling techniques. He won't stay pressed up against the wall (like the iron filing would) but he might not know that the fastest way over the wall is.

Could it be said that he did not go as efficiently as possible and but simultaneously maintained the goal as primary?

You, as an external observer of control, can evaluate the efficiency of the control process to your heart's content. But I don't think efficiency is relevant to the controller itself unless the controller is controlling for efficiency (as, for example, might be true for an engineer who is controlling for the design an energy efficient control system) or is controlling for other variables (like getting to Juliet on time) that make it necessary to control efficiently (in terms of time, in this case).

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

4

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.07.02.1508 CDT)]

Rick, yes, that is indeed the point I was making before. That efficiency is not relevant to the controller in the control process.

"You, as an external observer of control, can evaluate the efficiency of the control process to your heart's content. But I don't think efficiency is relevant to the controller itself unless the controller is controlling for efficiency"

Jim: I think the argument you are presenting is too heavily focused on efficiency. What are you controlling for in your seeming insistence on efficiency and seeing PCT through efficiency glasses? I mean, seriously, not to pick a fight here.

Like I said, the goal of any control is reducing the error signal, not how fast or how well that error signal is reduced. In life, so long as you control in a time format that allows you to survive to the next day (dodging a car, running down a flight of steps, running from predators, etc.) that is good enough. Good control, on average, enough to survive. That is all that is necessary, I am afraid.

The notion of efficiency carries with it a pre-defined plan. But the ordinary explanation of control means that this reaching a goal efficiently is not known. All that is known is that there exists an error signal representing the difference between what is perceived and some desired state of that perception. That is resolved by mainly random outputs that amount to eventually reducing the error signal. It may seem impossible, but habit has a lot to do with what channels the random outputs are put through that control happens quickly, but not necessarily efficiently.

I think that we know how Romeo acted, having seen it over and over again. But a REAL Romeo will act to reduce the error of being away from his Juliet over many days, weeks and months (and so will Juliet, btw). He will eventually finesse an opportunity and find a path. But he will not really know that path until it becomes available. I mean one can plan, but really, execution is a matter of taking advantage of opportunities. That is all over the business mgt literature. So...

My two cents....

--Bryan

> [Rick Marken (2006.07.02.1100)]
>
>> Jim Dundon( 07.02.06.1240edt)
>>
>>> Romeo wants Juliet as filings want a magnet; and if no obstacles intervene he moves toward her by as straight a line as they. But Romeo and Juliet, if a wall be built between them, do not remain idiotically pressing their faces against its opposite sides like the magnet and the filings with the [obstructing] card. Romeo soon finds a circuitous way, by scaling the wall or otherwise, of touching Juliet's lips directly. With the filings the path is fixed; whether it reaches the end depends on accidents. With the lover it is the end which is fixed, the path may be modified indefinitely. (James, 1890, p. 7pm
>>
>> Is this efficiency relative to the goal?
>
> I don't think so. The main point James is making is that a purposeful agent will vary its actions in order to try to produce a preselected result (goal) while a purposeless agent won't. The actions taken by a purposeful agent might and might not produce the goal result (in Romeo's case these actions produced the goal only occasionally -- on the balcony, after the wedding, etc -- but ultimately failed to produce a life with Juliet in the end). So I don't think efficiency is a consideration in this quote -- or in purposeful behavior in general. A purposeful agent may have learned to produce a goal using actions that are quite inefficient -- that is, actions that require more time and energy than others that would be just as successful at producing the goal result. An agent will keep using inefficient actions (inefficient from an observer's perspective, of course) as long as those actions work (produce the goal result).
>
>> Might it still be said he went straightaway [as efficiently as possible] to her with
>> zero deviation from the goal subordinating all subgoals such as hand and foot placement
>> to the primary one.
>
> Yes, but the hand and foot movements that actually get Romeo around the obstacles and to the goals are not necessarily those that, by some external criterion of efficiency, such as least time or energy, are the most efficient. For example, Romeo may not use the most time efficient wall scaling techniques. He won't stay pressed up against the wall (like the iron filing would) but he might not know that the fastest way over the wall is.
>
>> Could it be said that he did not go as efficiently as possible and but simultaneously maintained the goal as primary?
>
> You, as an external observer of control, can evaluate the efficiency of the control process to your heart's content. But I don't think efficiency is relevant to the controller itself unless the controller is controlling for efficiency (as, for example, might be true for an engineer who is controlling for the design an energy efficient control system) or is controlling for other variables (like getting to Juliet on time) that make it necessary to control efficiently (in terms of time, in this case).

···

> Best
>
> Rick
> ---
> Richard S. Marken Consulting
> marken@mindreadings.com
> Home 310 474-0313
> Cell 310 729-1400
>

5

[From Dick Robertson, 2006.07.02.1525CDT]

Rick Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2006.07.02.0900)]

}...,etc.}

I wrote to Pinker to ask where he got the quote (and to praise him for the book). He said he thinks he got it from the introductory psych text he uses (by Gray) so I'll take a look at that. I know that Gary Cziko used the quote in "Without Miracles" and I thought that perhaps Pinker got the quote from there (given his interest in evolutionary psychology) but apparently not.

}...,etc.}

By the way, rfter reading "How the Mind Works" makes me wish that Pinker had gotten interested in control (rather than evolutionary) psychology. He is one heck of a smart guy and a really excellent writer. If "How the Mind Works" had been based on control theory (rather than the computational model of mind) we all be drinkin' that green Bubble Up and eatin' that rainbow stew;-)

So, since you are in contact with him, have you aked him yet if he would be interested in a technical explication of how the goal orientation that he describes in _his_ excellent discussion of it actually works (as in BCP and Mind Readings, of course)?

Best,

Dick R.

···
6

[From Rick Marken (2006.07.02.1345)]

Dick Robertson, (2006.07.02.1525CDT) --

Rick Marken (2006.07.02.0900)]

By the way, rfter reading "How the Mind Works" makes me wish that Pinker had gotten interested in control (rather than evolutionary) psychology. He is one heck of a smart guy and a really excellent writer. If "How the Mind Works" had been based on control theory (rather than the computational model of mind) we all be drinkin' that green Bubble Up and eatin' that rainbow stew;-)

So, since you are in contact with him, have you aked him yet if he would be interested in a technical explication of how the goal orientation that he describes in _his_ excellent discussion of it actually works (as in BCP and Mind Readings, of course)?

I will try my best to judiciously broach the subject to him. But, to quote the Wicked Witch of the West, "these things must be done delicately" :wink:

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

7

[Martin Taylor 2006.07.02.16.57]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.07.02.1508 CDT)]

Rick, yes, that is indeed the point I was making before. That efficiency is not relevant to the controller in the control process.

"You, as an external observer of control, can evaluate the efficiency of the control process to your heart's content. But I don't think efficiency is relevant to the controller itself unless the controller is controlling for efficiency"

Jim: I think the argument you are presenting is too heavily focused on efficiency. What are you controlling for in your seeming insistence on efficiency and seeing PCT through efficiency glasses? I mean, seriously, not to pick a fight here.

Like I said, the goal of any control is reducing the error signal, not how fast or how well that error signal is reduced.

etc...

A long time ago, for a quite a long while on CSGnet we were careful to keep the viewpoint under consideration. We dealt with the control system's viewpoint, the external observer's viewpoint, the anaylst's viewpoint, and I forget what all. Much of the present discussion seems to be at cross purposes because the viewpoints used by the different participants aren't the same.

The "efficiency" of a _particular_ control _action_ makes sense from the analyst's viewpoint, because the analyst can measure all the parameters throughout the control loop and can make the necessary calculations. The "efficiency" of a control system is less well defined, because different environmental circumstances change both the actions and the effectiveness of the actions in controlling against disturbance. But it's still an anayst's problem. It does not make sense from the system's viewpoint, because all that the system can "see" is its perceptual signal. The only thing that affects the control system itself is how the perceptual signal value deviates from the reference signal value.

Efficiency of control makes no sense from the viewpoint of the external observer, either, because the external observer does not know what perceptual signal is being controlled (though that is subject to an interactive "Test"), and nor does the external observer know the value of the reference signal even if tthe nature of the controlled perception was known.

There is, however, another viewpoint from which efficiency and speed of control can be seen, and that is an evolutionary viewpoint (taking evolution in the sense both of inheritance from ancestors and of reorganization within the individual). Inefficient control means that energy is wasted on side effects, leaving less energy for effective control. Moreover, side effects can reverberate through the environment and cause later disturbances to the controlled perception. A usually more efficient control system in that sense will be fitter (more likely to survive) than a less efficient one. The same is true of a control system that usually brings the perceptual signal to the reference value faster rather than slower. This means that an analyst looking at a well evolved control system will be likely to see it as efficient and fast.

In life, so long as you control in a time format that allows you to survive to the next day (dodging a car, running down a flight of steps, running from predators, etc.) that is good enough. Good control, on average, enough to survive. That is all that is necessary, I am afraid.

Yes, but the more efficient control system is less likely to be found in a situation where it is debilitated from hunger or is in conflict because it is seeking food rather than controlling the fatal perception, and therefore fails to control for survival, and a faster one is less likely to be run down by a car coming unexpectedly around the corner. These are the kinds of differences that evolution uses to produce well-adapted organisms.

Recap: efficiency is only in the eye of the analyst, but if the control system has had enough time to learn (through inheritance or within the organism's lifetime), the analyst is likely to see a pretty efficient control system.

Martin