HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:mmt@ben.dciem.dnd.ca>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:44:19 EST
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject:      Re: Occam

[Martin Taylor 930127 13:30]
(Bruce Nevin 930127 08:54:45)

>Martin --
>
>I've read through the Occam piece, but have not got to the bottom
>of my disquiet.  I started to write something here, but decided
>to wait until I have been able to give it more thought.
>Everything ought to be re-framed, I believe, in terms of word
>dependencies in the sublanguage grammar for the science in which
>the hypotheses are stated.

That can't be relevant.  Whatever dependencies there are can only
contribute to the redundancy.  The point is that whatever constructs
and concepts YOU already hold can be used for free in describing new
stuff for YOU.  The hypothesis length of concern is the shortest way
YOU can describe the new stuff (which includes all the observations
that you didn't previously describe).  So no discussion, of whatever
kind it might be, about HOW the hypotheses are described, could
possibly be relevant to the argument.

Is your problem perhaps related to a misconception that the minimum
description length is an objective quantity?  It isn't.  It applies
to YOU and to no-one else.  It depends on what YOU already know (or
believe you know).

"The sublanguage grammar for the science" is of no value in stating
the hypothesis unless you have already incorporated that sublanguage
into your conceptual models.  It becomes part of the prior assumptions.
If you already have it, you can use it for free.  If you don't, then a
description of the sublanguage (and perhaps of the science) must be
included as part of the length of the hypothesis statement.

Before you complete what you were going to write, read my posting of
930121 18:30 "more on Occam."  There, the idea is extended, to show why
classical psychologists have trouble accepting PCT (of course, not in
those words--much more generally than that).  That's the posting in which
I pointed out that there should be no conflict between Rissanen and
Wallace&Freemen about MDL in the readings list you posted.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:mmt@ben.dciem.dnd.ca>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:56:49 EST
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject:      Re: PCT is Newtonian?

[Martin Taylor 930125 09:30]
(Avery Andrews 930123.930)

>One of the obstacles to PCT understanding is perhaps that it is a
>,, while most people's world views
>are pre-Newtonian, and the Newtonian picture is *hard* to acquire.

(Rick Marken 930123.1100)
>they assume that what THEY PERCEIVE about the organism's doings
>s what the organism IS DOING (controlling).

I have previously many times (outside CSG-L) compared Bill Powers' impact
on psychology with Newton's on physics.  But Bill's theory is NOT Newtonian.
Newton matches Rick's view about the happy campers.  Newton asserts that
there is a publicly knowable universe.  It was Einstein's contribution
to note that we can only observe the informatin that gets to us, and to
derive from that Relativity Theory and E=mc2.

The big point about HPCT is that it takes Einstein's observation and sees
where it leads for living things.  The results are as revolutionary and
as clarifying as Einstein's results in physics, and as hard to get one's
mind around when one is tuned to a pre-Newtonian way of thinking.  I have
equated Powers' work with Newton's because it integrates for the first time
areas of psychology that previously had their own little descriptions and
models, just as Newton's laws integrates a physics that was in the same state.
But the inspiration is Einsteinian, not Newtonian, which is what Rick's
"PCT Motto number 1" from some months ago says: "You can't see what
someone is doing by looking at what they are doing."

So, HPCT is NOT a "profoundly Newtonian theory" at all.  To say so is to
misread Newton or to misread Powers.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.Colorado.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
X-VMS-To: @CSG
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:49:24 -0700
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Request for names of book reviewers

[From Bill Powers (930122.1430)]

INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT.

I just had a call from Jerry Suls, a social psychologist at the
University of Iowa, apparently a followup to the request for
review copies of CSG books that Greg Williams told us about some
weeks ago.

Jerry brought the CSG books to the attention of John Harvey,
editor of Contemporary Psychology (where Jerry is an associate
editor). He asked Harvey if he would be interested in stirring up
a little controversy. Harvey was amenable to the idea. While
plans are still not firm, the proposition is to send out copies
of the books to a number of reviewers for fairly extensive
reviews, and publish them along with replies from members of our
group (which as far as I am concerned includes CSG-L as well as
the CSG). Jerry has been following the net conversations, has
read all the CSG books (mine, Marken's, Robertson's) as well as
Runkel's (which he likes and may do something with later), and
has been reading Closed Loop. He sounds as though he thoroughly
understands what's going on here.

The main problem as far as Jerry Suls is concerned is to select
the reviewers. He asked me for suggestions, and I said I would
consult you folks on the net. I think we need both pros and cons
if this project is to be interesting, especially as we will be
given space for replies.

Please put your suggestions on the net for discussion, with FULL
ADDRESSES. By posting them to the net, there will be a chance for
all of you to help pick judiciously, avoiding Absolute Idiots and
also True Believers. Jerry mentioned that he would like someone
from Human Factors. I think it would be nice to sample many
disciplines.

I'm sure that Contemporary Psychology will do its own search for
reviewers, but since we've been asked for suggestions, let's go
for it. I'll compile the resulting list and send it to Jerry
Suls.

Best to all,


Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:andaling@durras.anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:01:44 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      wineglass effect

[Avery Andrews 930126.1255]

What I meant to say in my discussion of Schmidt was that the `wineglas
effect' was particularly nice.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:0004972767@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:40:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      To Tom & Isaac

From Greg Williams (930123 - 2)

Tom, I've gotten Bill's final corrections on the CL paper; do you
want me to change anything else. Please let me know no later than
Monday, so I can mail the camera-ready to Ed Ford on Tuesday.

-----

>i.n.kurtzer [930123]

>what is this about my margins?

The text of your Friday post wrapped around on my 80-line screen; I
can only imagine the ugliness on Gary's Mac. (Last week, Gary asked
me in a private post to use about 70-character line lengths.) Isaac,
your line length looks like 81 sometimes.

At any rate, you said on Friday (sorry about the wraps, Gary!):

>
  to bourbon: that's great that your going for the journal of the experimental
    analysis of behavior. please incude my name; however, i'll admit that my par
t   was minimal and my grasp shaky (i thought differently then). in fact, i
    used the ideas for my Sparta term paper; i'll send you a copy.
>

I would greatly appreciate receiving a copy of your term paper, for
the CSG archive. I'd be happy to reimburse you for expenses. Thanks.

As ever,

Greg Williams
460 Black Lick Rd.
Gravel Switch (In the Heart of It All), KY 40328
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:Marken@courier4.aero.org>
Posted-Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 15:54:18 -0800
X400-Trace: US**AEROSPACE; arrival Fri, 22 Jan 93 15:54:18 -0800 action Relayed
P1-Message-Id: US**AEROSPACE; 930122235418
Ua-Content-Id: CSI NC V2.1b
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:54:18 -0800
From:         Marken@COURIER4.AERO.ORG
Subject:      Request for names of book reviewers

[From Rick Marken (930122.1600)]

Bill Powers (930122.1430) __

>INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT.

Indeed!

>Jerry mentioned that he would like someone
>from Human Factors.

Here is one human factors person -- I met him long
ago and he is very "pro" PCT and he seems to under-
stand it OK. He's not a True Believer, though -- and
certainly not a Complete Idiot. But he is a likely "pro"
review:

James A. Wise, PhD
2620 Willowbrook Ave.
Richland, WA 99352
No e-mail address is given for him.

If you want a sure fire "con" review just plunk your
finger down anywhere in the Human Factors
Directory.  I would like to see one by any of the
"manual control" gurus such as:

Chris Wickens
812 Devonshire
Champaign, IL 61820
CWICKENS@S.PSYCH.UIUC.EDU

Best

Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:andaling@durras.anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:57:26 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Schmidt (1982, 1988)

[Avery Andrews 930126.1250]


From reading around in Schmidt (1982, 1988),  _Motor Control and
Learning, A Behavioral Emphasis_, Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign
IL, a few general conclusions.

One is that he seems like a pretty fair and open minded person, in spite
of the rather nasty tone of a lot of my comments recently. In particular,
I think there's a substantial chance that he might be sympathetic to
the ideas that

  a)  people should pay more attention to the quantitative aspects of
        continuous feedback systems

  b)  `Motor Programs' might work by specifying sequences or `contours'
        (another desparate attempt to get away from event-based
        terminology) of perceptual reference levels.

On the other hand I'm sure he would want more detailed exemplification
of (b) than I can at this moment provide - e.g. hi level control of the
kind Rick Marken illustates in the spreadsheet demo, but simulating the
performance of a sensible task in an accurately simulated environment.

Overall the book provides overwhelming evidence that PCT is different
from prevailing ideas about motor control, although it also contains
discussions of lots of data that looks pretty challenging to PCT.

Although Schmidt does seem to have considerable awareness of the
potential of continuous control, and the wrong-headedness of some
of the criticisms of it (and the `wineglass effect' discussed on
pp. 175-176 of the 1988 edition), the text as a whole certainly
would not help a qualitatively-oriented person to get any sense of
how continuous control works. (and it definitely ain't written for
math nerds), and the presentation would tend to reinforce the
event-based conception in the mind of a student, I think.

However, Schmidt should not be held responsible for the sins of
Jordan & Rosenbaum in Posner (1989) (_Foundations of Cognitive
Science_) .. it's pretty clear that they didn't read, or at
least pay attention to, the material in pp. 212-227 (1982 edition).
(Professionals ought to know that they ought to look at the whole
book, among other things.)

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:andaling@durras.anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:47:06 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      gaia, linguistics

[Avery Andrews 930127.1000]
 Bill Powers (930126.0830)

Your description of `gaia failure' is pretty much how I heard the onset
of diabetes described once.

As for linguistics, what the grammars are supposed to do is define
a set of constraints, to which others can be added.  What these
constraints do is give you a limited number of OK pairings of overt
strings (utterances) and semantic structures.  Then their can be additional
constraints added, such that the structure be one involving a
certain overt string (that's parsing) or semantic structure (that's
production).  So I don't really see what the problem is in general
terms, tho the specifics are obviously a mess, & I think the notion
of `semantic structure' is especially dubious (but have no coherent
ideas about what to replace it with).

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU,@pucc.Princeton.EDU:0004912499@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:19:00 GMT
From:         "Robert K. Clark" <0004912499@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      ACCEPTANCE - RKC

There is much discussion of the misunderstandings and rejection of the
Perceptual Control Theory of Behavior.  It is suggested that various
rebuttals be composed and published.

The objects of these concerns are people -- themselves Hierarchical
Control Systems.  If PCT theory is useful, it should provide guidance as
to how best to accomplish our mutual goal: acceptance.  In general the
reactions to be expected are predictable: "it is ignored," "it is useless,
it offers nothing we don't already know," "it is wrong," "it is only
putting our present activities into modern terms." Various explanations
and excuses are proposed.  The audience has its own goals, interests,
concepts, theoretical constructs, problems.  It does not need additional,
unusual, unfamiliar material.  Hence the proposed ideas are compared to
the previously accepted structures and fitted in where possible --
"understood." Where they do not fit they are rejected with reasons
(sometimes) given.  We generally think (feel?) the given reasons reveal a
"failure to understand" the offered ideas.

My own experience, 30 years ago, was the reception of my paper, "How can
the Scientist Help the Psychotherapist?" Clark and McFarland, American
Academy of Psychotherapists, October, 1962.  I expected this 30 minute
invited paper to result in a variety of questions, rebuttals, rejections,
arguments, etc.  Instead I found the typical comment, from representatives
of several major theories was as noted above, "It is only putting our
activities into modern terms." We did have several interesting discussions
afterward, but the exercise led nowhere.

How is this situation to be overcome?  If we want our ideas to be used, we
must show where they help solve other people's problems, that is, help
them achieve the goals they are already working on.  What are their
motives, their higher order objectives?  We should show where PCT fits
into and contributes to their ideas.  We should compliment them on their
knowledge and insights.  We should use Positive Feedback, which, we know,
tends to result in increasing the supportive behavior.

Behavior perceived as attack results in defense, retreat or return of
attack.  Such conflicts may be fun for the winner, but often result in
losses on both sides.  Examples abound.

Regards,
Bob Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:maler@vercors.imag.fr>
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.5.6 6/30/89)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:57:10 MET
From:         Maler <maler@IMAG.FR>
Subject:      Black hole
              Control and stuff" (Jan 25,  2:20)

[From Oded Maler 930126]

Between 930119 and 930122 I was involuntarily unsubscribed from
CSG-L. Although these seem to be the most productive days I
had since a long time :-) I'd appreciate (Gary) if those black
holes in the history of science will be fixed. The last messages
before the deafferentation are those of Avery at the 19th morning,
and the first one after is from the List processor on the 22nd
announcing my resubscription.

Thanks

--Oded



--
===============================================================
Oded Maler, LGI-IMAG (Campus), B.P. 53x, 38041 Grenoble, France
Phone:  76635846  Fax: 76446675   e-mail: maler@vercors.imag.fr
===============================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:0004972767@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 13:23:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Good, good, and good

From Greg Williams (930123)

How's this margin width, Gary? Better speak with Mr. Kurtzer about
his, too. THANKS for the video! We'll probably view it tonight (ca. 3
AM).

-----

>Rick Marken (930122.0800)

>We now apparently have several "real" roboticts listening
>in on the net. How about asking them to provide a "requirements
>document" for such a robot.

I second the motion. Chris? John? Other robot researchers? Please!

-----

>Bill Powers (930122.1430)

>INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT.

And how!!! (Today there are proud folks here at CSG Book Publishing.)

I suggest proposing D.T. Campbell as a reviewer. Gary has his address.

I would LOVE to contribute to the replies to reviews. Might all
interested netters be able to put in their two cents toward a edited
"group" reply?

-----

>Avery Andrews 930123.1825

>So I think
>there's got to be some kind of `myths about feedback' article included
>to function as a preface.  Something along the lines of Bill's
>`Objections to PCT posting' (covering feedback too slow and
>deafferentation), but dressed in full academic battle gear.

Last year, soon after the arm paper was returned, Bill spoke with me
about working up a summary of the history of the "feedback too slow"
myth for inclusion in an expanded arm paper to be submitted to
BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS (or some other journal). I haven't had time to
do it, and you seem to be well-immersed in the subject, so why not
continue your explorations and write them up? You are absolutely
correct that such an article is needed (whether standalone or as part
of the arm documentation). You're probably halfway there, at least.
Linguistics can wait, right?

As ever,

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:Marken@courier4.aero.org>
Posted-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 07:55:28 -0800
X400-Trace: US**AEROSPACE; arrival Thu, 28 Jan 93 07:55:28 -0800 action Relayed
P1-Message-Id: US**AEROSPACE; 930128155528
Ua-Content-Id: CSI NC V2.1b
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:55:28 -0800
From:         Marken@COURIER4.AERO.ORG
Subject:      Re: Rubber band demo

[From Rick Marken (930128.0800)]

Ed Ford (930127:1018) --

>What do you think? [Of the rubber band demos]

Very nice!

Regards

Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:0004972767@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:21:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Non-Gaian PCT

From Greg Williams (930126)

Gary, I'm continuing to keep my margins under control, even though
Rick obviously cannot. Different reference levels for different
folks....

Neat recent paper for PCT-cum-evolution freaks: George C. Williams,
"GAIA, Nature Worship and Biocentric Fallacies," QUARTERLY REVIEW OF
BIOLOGY 67, December '92, 479-486. Some quotes follow.

484 - "No matter how many general benefits may arise from the
activities of organisms, they can never provide a valid parallel
between the collective effects and an organism's homeostatic controls.
The analogy confuses mass-action equilibria or input-output balances
with homeostasis. Homeostasis requires a feedback loop from a sensor
of the controlled variable to the machinery by which the control is
achieved.... Homeostasis should be recognized only if special sensory
and control machinery can be shown. Stability of some condition, even
if the condition is rapidly restored after disturbance, should not be
critically attributed to homeostatic machinery.... Old Faithful is not
an organism because it is not homeostatic. I would say the same about
Gaia for the same reason.... Adaptation is always asymmetrical;
organisms adapt to their environments, never vice versa. If the
environments at the surface of the Earth seem well suited to living
organisms, it is simply because those are the environments to which
organisms have adapted."

A few years back, Bill Powers corresponded with Gaia's Lovelock,
making similar points as Williams does. (Basically, that the
reference levels for Gaian regulation are IN EACH OF THE ORGANISMS,
not in the environment or (as Lovelock seemed to suggest) nowhere at
all.) Perhaps mainstream evolutionists (and Williams is about as
mainstream as you can get!) wouldn't consider (some) PCT ideas to be
as "revolutionary" as some PCTers think. Maybe ALL of biology won't
need to be redone, come the overthrow!

As ever,

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU,@pucc.Princeton.EDU,
             @gwuvm.gwu.edu:UMPLEBY@GWUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:28:15 EDT
From:         Stuart <UMPLEBY@GWUVM.GWU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: means, ends, politics

I very much like Bill Powers comments on means and ends.  I had not thought of
the issue in terms of cognitive complexity and I think that his contribution he
re is very important.
     Regarding taxes and equality, progressive taxes (heavier on the rich) coul
d be thought of as a negative feedback loop.  Regressive taxes (heavier on the
poor) would be an example of positive feedback.  Income taxes are progressive,
sales taxes are regressive.  As an example, in Europe higher education is free,
 but the sons and daughters of the professional classes use it more than the so
ns and daughters of the working classes.  Since it is paid for by general gover
nment revenues, free higher education is a regressive system, yet it is insiste
d upon by the socialist parties in Europe.  The conservative parties tend to fa
vor a more nearly pay as you go system, closer to the U.S.  What is happening h
ere?
    I think that the economists would note, regarding regulations, that large o
rganizations are better able to cope with regulations than small organizations.
Mom-and-pop stores can be overwhelmed and forced out of business by the need to
 fill out federal forms.  I believe it was President Carter who established the
 Federal Paperwork Commission to deal with this problem.  Regulation thus affec
ts the ability of new businesses to enter the market.  Regulations can protect
the general public and are essential to preventing a variety of abuses, but the
y can at times act like a flywheel on society, holding back innovation.  One ap
proach to dealing with the mix of pros and cons is "sunset laws" -- laws vanish
 x number of years in the future unless deliberately reenacted.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU