HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Texas A%M University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:10:59 CST
From:         MLee <N336BZ@TAMVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: dear Rick

In reply to: "From Rick Marken (921106.0800)"

>Thanks. You made my morning.

>You are most wise and most welcome to the list.

>How about a quick autobio and/or a comment about what
>got you onto csg-l?

O.K.

I am a degree candidate in sociology at Texas A&M University writing
dissertation entitled "Knowledge, Science, Technology, and Society:
a Theoretical Model of Self-Organization."  Basically, I am
arguing against the prevailing view of functionally differentiated
system structures that each act as "externalities" for the other.
I am trying to develop a hierarchical model of a self-organized
system of resource tranafers that utilizes the same unit of
of analysis for both ecosystems and social systems: the resource
transfer group.  I borrow this concept from Lee Freese at Washington
State University.

In building the model, I am interested in three basic sources of
hierarchical control: 1) interpersonal dominance/subordinance;
2) asymmetrical dependencies and interdependencies in "chains" of
resource transfers between groups; 3) aggregate control features
that may or may not be a perceptual artifact of the mathematical model.

I heard about the csg-l group via an announcement in the ASA newsletter.
I belong to a number of other groups, and decided to take a look.  I am
interested in the ideas, but _very_ unfamiliar with the area.  I
appreciate the beginner's bibliography that is posted, and am in the
process of locating some of the materials contained therein.

I am as yet undecided how the concept of perceptual control may fit
in with my thesis.  Thus, I am primarily observing the group
discussion at this point.

Thanks for welcoming me to the group.  I've enjoyed the discussion
so far, even though _some_ of it is Greek to me!


Regards,

M. Lee
From: PAPANICOLAOU@UTMBEACH.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Re: dear Rick
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:12:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET"

From Tom Bourbon (921106  11:01  CST)-----------

(Rick Marken  921105  15:47)  "Ouch. Et Tu,  Tom?"
 Re: my "ditto" to Ed Ford's remarks, I believe Ed meant that he would like
to call down a pox on both parties and on both the congress and past
presidents.  (Is that it, Ed?)  I agree with him.  I could say more, but
this is not the place.  After hours at the next meeting of CSG?
  Hasta luego,   Tom Bourbon
From: marken@aero.org (Richard Marken)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Re: PCT slogans
Date: 10 Nov 1992 21:31:34 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

Martin Taylor (921110  14:15)

>A reference discussed a few months ago:
>Vallacher, R.R. and Wegner, D.M. (1987) "What do people think they're doing?
>Action identification and human behavior" Psychological Review, 94, 3-15
>
>I guess they aren't laypersons, but they aren't PCT persons either.  They 
>would agree with PCT slogan number one.

But would they understand it?

Could you give a quick summary of the point of their article (which I
remember reading and finding irrelevant -- though I always have hope
in my soul).  

>I would have thought belief to be the essence of control.  Belief, to me, is
>a short word for "perception of the current state of whatever is being
>controlled for by this ECS." 

Well, I have a lot more confidence in my perception than that; what you
described is what I would call "knowledge". I think of a belief as a
potential perception -- like "the moon is made of green cheese" -- which
may or may not be subject to test. In the control model, I would identify
beliefs with reference signals -- not perceptions. Beliefs are typically
experienced as imaginations -- the reference signal played right back
up as the perceptual signal. We probably develop these "belief references"
because the imaginations they produce satisfy other, higher level references;
the belief in god, for example, probabaly makes the believer feel good
because it contributes to the perception of their "self" as something
special. So beliefs can be helpful -- but they can also lead to conflict
(since beliefs often require, as a matter of principle, that they not be
revised). This kind of belief (as many pain in the ass athiests
like myself are wont to point out) is placing a real bug in the hierarchy.
Of course, it is no bug if you can manage to stay away from situations
which "push" on the conflict; situations where the person with the
bug feels "out of control".

Best regards

Rick


     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)




Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:34:00 CDT
From:         PAPANICOLAOU@UTMBEACH.BITNET
Subject:      RE: dear Rick

From Tom Bourbon (921105 -- 12:31 CST)

Ditto.
From: sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM (Penni Sibun)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Re: language issues
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:23:48 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-else-reply-to: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
              6 Nov 1992 11:11:10 -0800 <92Nov6.121618pst.12597@alpha.xerox.com>

(penni sibun 921109.1300)

i have almost as much trouble constructing enormous msgs. as reading
them....

   [From: Bruce Nevin (Mon 92112 07:38:16 through Fri 92116 14:05:06)]

   >what does meaning have to do with anything?  why can't speech actions
   >be just like other actions, which presumably aren't mediated by
   >``meaning''?

   I would suggest that all perceptions "have" meaning, that is, any given
   perception is linked in associative memory to other perceptions.  I'm
   not sure precisely what you (penni) mean by the phrase "mediated by
   meaning".  Let me lay out a bit of what I think is going on.

well, i actually don't believe in ``meaning'' very much.  i think it's
a systematic error that people tend to think actions that involve
language have meanings and those that don't don't.  i would think that
pct would be exactly the kind of approach to expunge ``meanings''
altogether (but then i see y'all using the term).

cheers.

				--penni
From: 0005096370@MCIMAIL.COM (Henry James Bicycles Inc)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Language
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:54:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

[From Hank Folson (921109)]

(Bill Powers (921107.0800)):

>...linguists, I get a sense of something missing. PCT itself is about how a
>brain works...

If PCT is correct, language is just one of the tools we use for controlling
our perceptions. If language suddenly ceased to help us to control our
perceptions, we would not continue to use it. I don't think linguists see
language in such a cold-hearted way.

What I feel is missing in the linguistic posts is a linking of the
linguistic theories and examples to the nature of control systems. For
instance a recent post quite logically explained HOW languages can change
over time. But there was no mention of WHY in terms of PCT. My guess in PCT
terms is that a living control system will not control for zero change in
words and their pronunciation unless the changes interfere with controlling
actions. Thus language details can drift any which way as long as the
changes occur slowly enough that they are not disruptive.

>a lot of propositions by linguists seem to me to be concerned with WHAT is
>done, or proposing ways to use the brain's facilities to achieve an
>equivalent effect, as in checking off lists of statements.

What else can they do? Linguists do not have PCT as a recognized and
accepted tool for understanding how the human mind is structured and works.
As a result, they have to make do with what they know. It is as if the mind
is a "Black Box" that they have no access to. All their understanding must
come from observing only the language output and not the machinery that
generates the language.

My feeling is that to understand language, rather than starting from the
spoken word and working backwards, it will be easier to start from how the
human mind functions and work forward using PCT. This will be very difficult
for linguists to get into, if linguists have a systems concept of language
as an entity that evolves and has a life of its own.

Hank Folson, Henry James Bicycles, Inc.
704 Elvira Avenue, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
310-540-1552 (Day & Evening) MCI MAIL: 509-6370 Internet: 5096370@MCIMAIL.COM
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-else-reply-to: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:55:04 PST
From:         Penni Sibun <sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM>
Subject:      Re: meaningful or less
              10 Nov 1992 09:58:20 -0800
              <92Nov10.111030pst.12170@alpha.xerox.com>

(penni sibun 921110.1600) --

   [From: Bruce Nevin (Tue 921110 12:55:31)]

   (penni sibun 921109.1300) --

just to add one more cycle to this, i think we're disagreeing even
less that you think.

   Where we differ is this: you would rule meaning out; I urge instead that
   meaning is pervasive.  But we apparently mean different things by
   "meaning."

the concept of ``meaning,'' or anything else, is useful in a theory
only insofar as it has explanatory power.  you seem to be saying here
that meaning is everything--is inherent.  to say that something is
everything isn't much different from saying it is nothing:  what good
does it do to say ``that has property x'' when everything has property
x?

   You went on to ask:

      >						 why can't speech actions
      >be just like other actions, which presumably aren't mediated by
      >``meaning''?

   I affirm that "speech actions can be just like other actions" but I deny
   your presumption, now that I understand what you mean by "mediated by
   meaning" (or I think I do).

the rest of your discussion was interesting, but i didn't see it as
addressing your point.  it's not clear to me whether you think
speech actions are distinguished actions or not.  (my argument is that
they are not distinguished (in any nonincidental way)).

cheers.

				--penni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:07:19 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         "Bill Cunningham, ATCD-G (8" <CUNNINGB@MONROE-EMH1.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:      More on Hamming

From Bill Cunningham (921112.2030)

Re John Gabriel (921111.0945), his posts on Hamming distance, Bruce's comment.


First, John's intro failed to state the official method for finding the needles
in haystacks:   Process the haystacks through the cattle herd, then study
the resultant product in great detail.  Since that approach is fun, add more
haystacks and cattle--but never, never, never use a magnet, look for sick cows,
or even the guy hiding the needles in the first place.   You may conclude we
were not successful.  That provides our current motivation.

Comments on Hamming distance are quite in order.  Actually, had only considered
two protagonists--one of whom serves as observer.  First, both players have to
control for communicating--at least for now.  A Hamming distance can only be
defined for the mutually held proposition set.  No real progress is possible
unless both parties agree to make this the union of their respective sets,
with the disjoint members weighted at zero by one party or the other.  How
do they get this far?  First layer of layered protocols should to establish
the larger set.  Subject to error?  Sure.  Recursive? You bet.  But Martin
Taylor's point that communication is the control of belief applies.  The
recursion should continue until both are satisfied the larger set is mutually
held.  Presumably both parties will continue to test for zero perceived error
on this point.

Having gone through all this, a Hamming distance can be defined since a
difference in individual proposition weights is only difference between the
proposition sets held by the two protagonists.

All of this merely placing a formalism on LPT.

It's not hard to envision (or explain) various intentional and unintentional
dysfunctional approaches to communication (eg deliberate ambiguity, deception,
refusal to listen).

John's comment about a row with his boss was stimulated by my observation that
many disagreements were fueled by failure to generate the union
set as the first protocol layer.  The LPT recursion can deal only with
the mutual set of propositions.  Unfortunately, if each party associates
these with other (privately held) propositions, each recursion can only
produce a major error signal to each party.  The result:  "YOU'RE NOT
LISTENING TO ME!!"   In other words, hidden propositions are downright
disruptive, whether intentionally hidden or not.

Regards,
Bill C.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:02:22 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: meaning, reality

[Avery Andrews 921113.957]

(Bill Powers (921112.0900))

 >I think that linguists will ultimately be the people who tell
 >us just how they are involved. But linguists, too, will have to
 >distinguish the word or description from the "object" it means before
 >this can come about.

They already do, as do all philosophers, e.g. Barwise and Perry in their
`situation semantics'.  I just don't see what problem you're getting at here.
I would say that objective reality should be accepted because it's
the best explanation of the experiences that support congruence.  E.g.
if you tell me that if I follow a certain route I'll find something
at the end, & I follow the route and find what you told me I'd find.
There are various other possible theories, such as that I am a brain
in a vat being fed sense data by a vast computer, but by normal
scientific standards, these are obviously hopeless.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au



Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:17:02 EST
From:         "(Avery Andrews)" <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      language & modelling

[Avery Andrews 9211414]

 (Dag Forssell (921109))

I don't think the lack of good modelling in linguistics by people
interested in PCT due to ignorance of PCT--it's due to ignorance of
how to build `essentially connectionist' models (e.g. ones that are
consistent with what we know about how neural circuitry works) that
actually do the sorts of things that language use obviously involves.
I can't do it, Penni can't do it, Bruce can't do it.  I suspect that
the person who figures it out will be neither a linguist nor a
neuroscientist, but somebody with a substantial but maybe not
fully professional grade knowledge of both subjects, plus lots of
some kind of math.  & this person may come along next Thursday or
100 years from now, or never.

At any rate, great sophistication in linguistics is certainly not
required to work on this subject - any PCT modeller could start
tackling the problem of, say, how to build a device that would
hear or read a description of where a place was supposed to be,
and then go there.  In fact I think that would be an excellent
problem to work on for people who think that the linguists on
CSGNet are perverse.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:04:44 CST
From:         "(John Gabriel)" <gabriel@EID.ANL.GOV>
Subject: Re: Hamming it up

	(John Gabriel 921109:16:45 CST) --

Can't resist - a new insight from Bruce's mail. If Penni's or my KB
really is a space of 2**N truth values for N Aristotelian propositions
defining a mutually agreed universe of discourse, and this space is
sparsely populated by instances (not hard for say N=256), then one
can triangulate a new instance by its' Hamming distances from old
ones. BIG question - how do we put the benchmarks in?? I think by
a set of shared experiences - sort of like the light signals of
relativity that define coincidences in space time - these are a
physicist's abstraction for the shared experiences that we all have
as a society, and which are the basis for communication. Another
question - how much is the lack of acceptance for PCT by many
cognitive scientists caused by lack of expriential benchmarks
in control theory, how much by badly triangulated ones, (I remember
a quite well known ecologist claiming quite seriously that animals
eat entropy - terrible confusion between Boltzmann entropy and Shannon
entropy), and how much simply by different value systems. This is
an extension of a comment by Bill Cunningham about my saying that
most of my fights with my boss were about different values. He said
No! many of the bigger fights are about Aristotelian propositions,
i.e. missing or badly triangulated benchmarks.

	John Gabriel 921111 00:02
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:16:41 EST
From:         "(Avery Andrews)" <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      science & engineering

[Avery Andrews 921102.18.13]
 (Dag Forssell (921109))

 >Even on this CSGnet, which is dedicated to the study of PCT, there
 >appears to be relatively few people who have studied PCT seriously, as
 >an engineering science. Those who have, recognize and visualize the
 > ...
 >PCT lives up to rigorous levels of testing and verification.
 >Demonstrations with real human beings having to use their brain routinely
 >demonstrate 95-98% correlation between prediction and actual.

In some areas, but not in others, such as finding the fridge door
(since nobody knows how to wire up a fridge-door detector). But the
science isn't mature until this and many other problems are sorted
out, & it's a big mistake to try to launch an engineering discpline
without a clear view of the scope and limits of the extant (as opposed
to hoped-for) science (the folks in Eastern Europe are up for
quite a few years of picking up the wreckage of such a mistake).

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:49:00 GMT
From:         Dag Forssell <0004742580@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Closed Loop

[From Dag Forssell (921110)]

Just a note to let Greg and Ed know how much I enjoy the Closed Loop and
Ed's card.

I am noticing how skillfully Greg chooses a (later, as I recall) piece
by Ed to introduce the thread. The whole piece flows well and holds
interest. Thanks, Greg.

Ed, your card is a treasure of specifics. Soon you will have to publish
it on a plastic card with built-in magnifying glass. The section on
setting standards reflects a heavy emphasis on counseling juvenile
delinquents? You certainly operate against a background of threats of
violence. Your accomplishment is to reduce the level of coercion
substantially and teach the juveniles to function better, which in turn
reduces the level of coercion even more.

Best, Dag
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Institut fuer Medizinische Computerwissenschaften
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 11:19:02 CET
From:         Christian.J.Reichetzeder@AWIIMC12.IMC.UNIVIE.AC.AT
Subject:      Re: automatic filelist for archives
              12 Nov 1992 17:29:32 PST from <YOSSIE@UCSFVM.UCSF.EDU>

On Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:29:32 PST Yossie Silverman said:
>Is there currently a way to make LISTSERV generate an automatic FILELIST
>for the archived notebook's (separate, monthly, weekly, etc..)?
>
>So, whatcha all think?  Is it doable today?  In the future?  - Yossie
Based  on Gopher2.2  I wrote  some  small hacks  using LISTSERV's  interactive
database  search  and it's  message-responses.  I  have two  modifications  to
LISTSERV. One is to ignore the  "interactive limits" for special users and the
second one  is that  GopherD may act  "on behalf" of  network users  i.e. when
GopherD requests  a "List of  local lists" the  command functions as  "tell me
what a user from xyz.some.host would see".
GopherD builds a  filelist in storage (using Pipes). Neither  have I ported it
to 2.3, nor revised for LISTSERV 1.7e,  nor is the code optimized insofar that
redundant requests are avoided. This would  require some work on GopherD and a
tighter coupling of LISTSERV  and GopherD. All this can be done  of course - I
just   don't  have   the  time.   So  whoever   wants  to   see  it,   contact
AWIIMC12.IMC.UniVie.AC.AT [131.130.43.2] on port 70. And whoever wants to look
at the code behind all that - ask me.

Christian
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:51:37 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Missing routine in LSV$GETQ
              5 Nov 1992 10:47:59 EST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

LSV$GETQ is a  user-customizable exit and thus I cannot  service it. When
LSVNAD was renamed to LSVADM, I  shipped a "shell" LSVNAD file which just
called LSVADM.  I also advised  people who don't have  local applications
calling LSVNAD  (or one  of the  other names) to  delete all  the shells.
Unfortunately, in order to do that you have to modify LSV$GETQ.

  Eric
From: NU021172@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Marty Hoag)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Subject: Re: Changes from release 1.7d to 1.7e --- NEW /FORWARD
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:00:00 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


   I think Eric mentioned the new version in September when he made a
new LSV$FORW EXEC available but I put that on my list of "things to
do" since I had some local mods.  Well the old LSV$FORW EXEC we were
using broke while testing 1.7e.  Someone else mentioned that his happened
when they installed 1.7e also.

   If you use the /FORWARD command in LISTSERV you probably want to do
a GET LSV$FORW EXEC from LISTSERV@SEARN.  The current one (well - the
one that works on 1.7e) is dated 9/17/92.  When I last checked a few
days ago the LSV$FORW EXEC was the only thing that had changed in the
FORWARD PACKAGE.

       Marty
From: DEVMTG12@SAKFU00.BITNET (MUSTAFA T. ALGHAZAL)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Subject: DBASE SEARCH
Date: 7 Nov 92 13:33:16 GMT
Organization: KFU - KING FAISAL UNIVERSITY ,SAUDI ARABIA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

HI ...
   We have a list whose it's Notebook and monthly archives are stored in
a seprate disk (other than the Listserv 191 ) .When trying to use the Dbase
search utility in Listserv (LDBASE) ,it's only searching the contributions of
the Notebook only .It's not searching on the other monthly archives files.
Can anyone tell me how to do for the other files .Thanks ,,,
Below I included the keywords parameters of this list :

*
*  Discussion Forum on Personal Computers Arabization
*
*  Review= private       Subscription= by_owner  ACK=MSG
*  Notify= NO        Reply-to= List,Respect     Files= Yes
*  Validate= Store Only
*  Mail-Via= Distribute    Stats=Normal
*  Notebook= Yes,X5/202,monthly,private
*  Errors-To=Owners
*  Owner=  DEVMTG12@SAKFU00     (Mustafa Alghazal)
*  This List Discusses Various Topics on PC Arabization Tools .
*

____________________________________________________________________
|  MUSTAFA T. AL-GHAZAL          ||     DEVMTG12@SAKFU00.BITNET    |
|  KFU NODE ADMINSTRATOR         ||     OR : NAD@SAKFU00           |
|  ACADEMIC COMPUTING SERVICES   ||     VOICE: (966) 3-580-0219    |
|        M A N A G E R           ||     OR : (966)3-580-0000 X 1214|
|  KING FAISAL UNIVERSITY        ||     COMPUTER CENTER            |
|  HOFUF-SAUDI ARABIA            ||     P.O.BOX 380                |
|________________________________||________________________________|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU