HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Via:        UK.AC.ABER;  5 OCT 92 15:48:26 BST
X-Mts:      smtp
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:49:29 +0100
From:         mar@ABER.AC.UK
Subject:      A tracking task: help needed

We are setting up a student project for which we need some help.
Any suggestions on how to tackle the problem are gratefully received.

There is a video tape showing a moving person. On his/her arm, there is
a light source, so that what we need to do is to track the light spot
(a classical tracking task). The output of the control system is simply
the xy coordinates of the light spot as a function of time (which will
be further processed, later).

A computer simulation of this is perfectly acceptable, although what we
really want is to use the real data, that is, the video tape.

Any suggestions? Thanks in advance,

Marcos Rodrigues
mar@uk.ac.aber
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:45:17 CDT
From:         "Patricia Alfano" <upalfano@UXA.ECN.BGU.EDU>
Subject:      dennet & powers

September 28, 1992

[From Pat Alfano]

Francisco Arocha

For an ecological perspective of "our perceptual experience" try James
J. Gibson's 1966 book, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems.
Also, his 1979 book; the title of which is something like An
Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.  He also has written many
articles.  His ideas are quite different than those of Richard Gregory
and the mainstream perceptionists.

Pat
From: ray@ESPRESSO.BOEING.COM ((Ray Allis 5-3583))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: status
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:11:20 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

QUERY CSG-L
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 13:31:16 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:31:16 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Blind Men, UCSD anyone?

[From Rick Marken (920929.1330)]

Gary Cziko (920929.0250 GMT) re: Blind men

>  I think I would will need to put some of my
>own words into the paper

Of course. I think we should also change the title to reflect your
suggested change in the paper's point of view. This will be after the
Psycholoquy review -- which might not be long, especially if it is
rejected (THAT would be a coup -- being rejected by a journal that
accepts everything).

Correction: In my post to Martin Taylor (today) I used the word "mute" when I
meant "moot"> Interestingly, the mistake makes little difference to my
intended meaning but I thought I'd point it out anyway.

General question: Is there anyone on CSGNet who is at UCSD? Or does anyone
on the net know anyone with an e-mail address at UCSD? Is so, please
let me know. Thanks.

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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:00:03 EDT
From:         "CHARLES W. TUCKER" <N050024@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      PLEASE SEND ME YOUR ABSTRACT FOR A PAPER - QUICKLY

                         %%%&&&%%%&&&%%%&&&%%%&&&%%%

                           A N N O U N C E M E N T


      Please send title and abstract of a paper by October 7, 1992 for:


               A PERCEPTUAL CONTROL THEORY OF MACRO STRUCTURES

                                     to

                              Charles W. Tucker
                           Department of Sociology
                        University of South Carolina
                              Columbia SC 29208
                              V- (803) 777-3123
                              F- (803) 777-5251
                              H- (803) 254-0136
                             N050024 @ UNIVSCVM


     Other important events at this meeting are:

                  A session on Kuhn' Self Theory organized
                  by Bob Stewart with presentations by
                  Carl Couch, Tom McPartland, Clark McPhail
                  and Chuck Tucker

                  A Presidental address by Clark McPhail


                    MIDWEST SOCIOLOGICAL SOCIETY MEETINGS
                              APRIL 7-10, 1993
                                HYATT REGENCY
                              CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

                         %%%&&&%%%&&&%%%&&&%%%&&&%%%
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.5.6 6/30/89)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 11:45:03 MET
From:         "(Maler)" <maler@IMAG.FR>
Subject:      Eye-head, cheap insects and sub-symbolic
              bad control;learning swimming; control via reorg" (Oct  4, 14:

From: Oded Maler 921004

3 quick notes:

1. In Nature (around 24.9.92) there was an article about a model
that predicts head-eye movements during driving.

2. There was a recent announcement in comp.robotics concerning
very cheap insect robots such that even independent researchers
can afford to play with (less than 10$ each). If there's
interest I can post. Their perceptual system is very primitive,
but hackers can extend it.

3. I cam across some work of Smolensky where he claims to unify
sub-symbolic and symbolic notions in a common framework. Does
Bill P. have any ideas/opinions concerning this work (which
is done in the neighborhood) ?

--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
X-Envelope-to: csg-l@UIUCVMD.BITNET
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:55:12 +0100
From:         Rudy Gobits <wmorrg@URC.TUE.NL>
Subject:      no subject (file transmission)

CSG-L-REQUEST to be added to the mailing list

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Rudy Gobits                                :      Tel.: (31) 40 473900
  Eindhoven University of Technology         :
  Faculty of Philosophy and Social Sciences  :  Internet: wmorrg@urc.tue.nl
  P.O. Box 513                               :
  5600 MB  EINDHOVEN  -  The Netherlands     :       Fax: (31) 40 449875
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 15:50:37 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:50:37 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Testing

[From Rick Marken (921002.1600)]

The following is a test of the emergency PCT understanding system. This
is only a test:

"PCT makes all current textbooks on psychological methods obsolete."

True or false.

Have a nice weekend.

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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 08:25:40 EDT
From:         "CHARLES W. TUCKER" <N050024@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      REVISED DIAGRAMS FOR RUBBERBAND EXPERIMENTS

                                   CHUCK TUCKER 920928A

I am posting three revised diagrams for the rubber band experiment.  These
diagrams have the symbols (colors) arranged in a mirrored reverse arrangement.
This arrangement makes it possible for the E to place his/her finger on a
"spot" on his/her side of the diagram and the P will have his/her finger
on that same "spot" be it symbol, letter, color or whatever.  The E does not
have to watch the finger of the P but simply his/her own finger.  This is a
way to shoe that E can control for a particular symbol and if P is controlling
for the knot over the "X" then P's finger will be on the same symbol as E's.
Now, what do you want to call this: influence, exploitation, manipulation or
ordinary social transaction??? Oh no, not this whole discussion again!!!!

Regards, Chuck
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:27:00 GMT
From:         Dag Forssell <0004742580@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Behavior of Perception

[From Dag Forssell (920927-1)]

Bill Powers (920926.1900)  In quick response to my diagrams:

>...it takes the 11 levels as Gospel about 20 years prematurely.

>I don't think you can just make up diagrams like this, not if you want
>them  to have any persuasive force. They have to be based on actual
>personal  experience, yours or someone else's, or they just won't be
>convincing.

I really appreciate your quick feedback, before you went camping.

My wording for the upper levels was hasty (and sloppy), pressing against time
to post something for the sake of feedback. I had spent more time and felt
more comfortable with the lower levels.

My thinking now is to introduce the analysis of levels with guidance of your
post on levels of perception (920324.0300). (Any thoughts on my description
of the bottom levels of vision. We have never mentioned the three color
sensitivities of cones, but they are well documented).

I grant you that

>Also, it doesn't (can't, really) capture the parallel nature of systems
>at these levels, and the branching networks that underlie each system
>at each level.

But this diagram can be supplemented by others (drawn to a smaller scale,
(such as LCS I: page 278) designed to convey the parallel and branching
nature of the model. I am working on that too.

>This sort of example isn't too difficult to construct at the lower levels..

I would like to do just this, then leave the upper reaches blank. My post
yesterday will provide a start and a vehicle for communication on the net.
The net result for now is simply to scale back my ambition.

Any contributions, corrections and comments from other netters are solicited.
I will share the graphic result by snail mail on request, which will at least
look good and be suggestive of further research.

I agree that it is a good idea to leave the upper reaches blank, leaving them
to individual introspection.

For purposes of Vision/Mission statements, which are a leadership application
of PCT, I will be the first to suggest that people use the general concept
of layering, but use labels that make sense to themselves as they see fit.

As I see it now, suggested wording in the upper reaches may include:

System concept:       Understanding
                      Belief
                      Vision

Principles:           Principles
                      Values
                      Priorities
                      Mission
                      Standards

Programs:             Action Plan

Sequences:            Methods

By the time a person has created a statement for a business, using some of
this terminology, it will likely appear to have more layers than we talk
about in the model.

Leaving the upper reaches of the model blank invites people to think this
through and create layers of terminology that make sense to them.

Again, thanks for fast feedback, Bill.

Dag
From: bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM (Bruce E. Nevin)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: percept
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:53:20 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

[From: Bruce Nevin (Tue 92106 08:35:57)]

I am troubled by the noun "percept" that you have introduced, Martin,
and have been using for some time.  Maybe you can clear it up for me.

I know you defined it carefully at the outset, a number of months ago,
but I'm reluctant to search through disk archives.  (And I don't have a
Mac with your Hypercard stack!)  It seems to denote something outside an
ECS to which the perceptual signal within the ECS corresponds.  Perhaps
there is a "percept" corresponding to the reference signal as well, and
maybe even for the error signal?

At one level, my concern is that this term cannot legitimately be used
when speaking from the point of view of the ECS, and that to do so is to
mask certain kinds of possible assumptions (of reader or writer), and
consequently to court confusion.  (Bateson talks at length about
epistemological problems that arise from errors of logical type.)

At a second level, my concern is that some unjustified reification may
have crept in around the use of this term "percept," however carefully
it was originally intended.

It seems to be useful to abbreviate otherwise cumbersome locutions.
Perhaps it would be a good thing to spell out explicitly what locutions
are intended to be abbreviated, as distinct from others for which we
might be tempted to use it but ought not.

Or is it all crystal clear, and I'm just out of touch with CSG dialect?

	Bruce
	bn@bbn.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"csg-l@uiucvmd.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:03:00 CDT
From:         PAPANICOLAOU@UTMBEACH.BITNET
Subject: Re: Why 99%?

From: Tom Bourbon [921002 -- 14:45 CDT]

Re: Re: Why 99%?

How does it happen? I kow what I typed, but that isn't what I see
on the copy that came back to me from CSG-L.

I wanted to say:

"The PCT model does NOT succeed by predicting that people will do
extremely well on the task.  Sometimes they don't."

Where did the "not" go?  Its absence does alter the meaning.

Best wishes,

Tom Bourbon

MEG Laboratory                     PAPANICOLAOU@UTMBEACH.BITNET
1528 Postoffice Street             PAPANICOLAOU@BEACH.UTMB.EDU
Galveston, TX 77550                PHONE   (409) 763-6325
USA                                FAX     (409) 762-9961
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:12:39 EDT
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      MIT talk

[From: Bruce Nevin (Fri 921002 13:14:03)]

I'm back from my month's field trip among the Indians, jet-lagged, and
with much to catch up on.  The following of possible interest was
forwarded to me from the MIT AI list.

-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
             WHY DO WE SEE THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECTS?

                           Thomas Marill

                          October 1, 1992
                               4pm
                         8th floor playroom


                             Abstract


When we look at certain line-drawings, we see three-dimensional objects.
The question is why; why not just see two-dimensional images?

In this talk we explore the theory that we see objects rather than
images because the objects are, in a certain mathematical sense, less
complex than the images.

However, there are infinitely many objects that project to any drawing.
As a result, a second question arises: Given that we are going to see an
object when we look at a drawing, which one will it be?

The theory under discussion holds that the object selected by the vision
system will be the least complex of the available alternatives.
Experimental data supporting the theory will be reported.

This work is based on the pioneering ideas of Solomonoff and Kolmogorov,
and on the more recent ``minimum description length'' concept of
Rissanen.

    ****Revolving Seminar****Revolving Seminar****Revolving Seminar****

The schedule for the rest of the semester:
Oct.  8: Bart Selman
Oct. 14: David Liddle
Oct. 22: open
Oct. 29: Eric Sven Ristad
Nov.  5, 12, 19: open
Dec.  3: Brian Subirana
Dec. 10: Andrew W. Moore

If you are interested in giving a talk send email to mdlm@ai.mit.edu.
The Revolving Seminar has a small budget for reimbursing the travel
expenses of senior researchers.  If you are interested in a particular
speaker, please let us know.  We are particularly interested in
inviting people who espouse views that are not widely represented
within the lab.

-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:29:04 +0100
From:         cmcphail@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Subject:      Re: Instructional Labs

>
>[From: Clark McPhail (921001)]
>

>
>>>Dennis Delprato (920930)--
>

>I do feel that for purposes of instruction, it is a good policy to
>keep things as simple as possible so as not to obscure the really
>big points of PCT with matters that are best considered by the
>more advanced student.  Bill's Demo 1 and Demo 2 (not currently
>in a form suitable for  labs) nicely illustrate a gradual
>build up in complexity.
>

Dennis:

I'm not sure to what laboratory purpose(s) you want to put Bill's Demo 1
and Demo2.  I have put Demo 1 on a file server for up to 50 DOS machines.
Students work through the entire set of exercises before returning to one
of their choice which they then run a second time.  Having done so they
print the screen display of the traces for that run and take that print
away with them.  They then answer a series of questions on the printout and
submit their answers with the printout for my evaluation.

Clark
>
>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:27:46 EDT
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject: Re: truth vs cooperative agreement

[Martin Taylor 921006 16:30]
(Bruce Nevin Tue 92106 13:21:19)

>Oh dear, I wasn't going to say much.  I'll never catch up at this rate!

Wow!  I'm really glad you said as much as you did.  I think you made a
foundational statement in the last part of your posting.  Just for luck,
I want to play it back for you.  Why?  I like it so much I want to see it
again.  It says so much in so few words.

Sorry, troops and bandwidth conservers...
===============

>Agreements, and the cooperation that they enable, may even be sometimes
>more important to us than the "fidelity" of public-domain CEVs with
>personal perceptions.  We may tolerate discrepancies.  Sometimes people
>may compartmentalize or encapsulate systems of perceptions so as to
>avoid perceiving inconsistencies (Rokeach: _The Open and Closed Mind_).

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:57:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Dreaming as ref. sig. calibration

From Greg Williams (920930 - 3)

>Martin Taylor 920929 16:50

>One of my earlier reasons for getting interested in PCT is that it seemed
>to give a very straightforward explanation of both dream structure and
>dream content.

A few years back, I had the idea that dreaming might serve to recalibrate/
fine-tune our control structures. After much perusal of the (enormous!)
literature on sleep (especially regarding the effects of sleep deprivation), I
gave a presentation on this at the 1990 CSG meeting. Unfortunately, I made the
mistake of thinking that the "drift" needing to be offset by dreaming is in
the gain of the input function -- but in fact that DOESN'T matter appreciably
if control is good. More recently, Rick Marken (in posts on CSGnet) pointed
out that there might be drift (i.e., due to purely local biochemical
fluctuations) in reference signals which might need correcting. Dreaming
might provide an opportunity for correcting such "additive" (as opposed to
"multiplicative" -- gain) drifts: the output side is shut down, so the person
doesn't get hurt, then "imaginary" disturbances WHICH ARE NOT DUE TO
INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS, BUT CAN BE KNOWN TO THE ORGANISM are applied
to various perceptual input pathways, allowing reference signals to be checked
to see whether they "correctly" offset the disturbances (and allowing
correction if necessary).

There's still a problem with this idea, at least at the low levels. Some
researchers have reported "no" deficits in fine motor control (i.e., playing
ping-pong) even after hours and hours of sleep deprivation. But maybe ongoing
correction, while awake, of these low-level processes is easily achieved,
while higher-level processes need dreaming? There is a lot of evidence that
long-term sleep deprivation can result in bizarre kinds of behavior. And
dreams are often "about" high-level reference levels -- maybe.

>What about the content of dreams?  Most psychodynamic theories seem to deal
>with the dream as a kind of problem-solving analogue, and I think the PCT
>approach would reinforce this view.

Maybe some of this is going on, as well. Bill in BCP raised this possibility.

Slipperily (on purpose, this time),

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:06:06 +0100
From:         cmcphail@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Subject:      Re: Arm (to B.P.); Influence Summary

> FR  Clark McPhail  (921001_

>>RE Greg Williams (920928)

>
>An aside: What's going on in HYPNOSIS in PCT terms???
>

I am not surprised that someone concerned with "influence" would be
concerned with the "ultimate" form of "social control":  hypnosis.  My
impression for years was that hypnosis works because the subject focuses
upon and tells him/herself to do exclusively what he/she is instructed to
do by the hypnotist.  Then I discovered with work of Theodore X. Barber, a
psychologist who is now retired but who examined the phenomenon of hypnosis
across a forty year span of time.  Simply stated, Barber rejects the
"trance state" theory of hypnosis and has generated a considerable body of
empirical evidence supporting his critique.  Further, Barber has advanced
an alternative interpretation which turns the commonsense view of hypnosis
on its head.  Instead of the subject-as-passive receptacle of the
hypnotist's suggestions, Barber construes subjects as exercising variable
degrees of imagination;  that is, they are variably capable of imagining
the outcome the hypnotist "suggests" and then carrying out the actions
require to fulfill what they have imagined.  In one experiment he compared
the performances of a standard repertoire of "hypnotic feats" (e.g., the
plank posture, arm levitation, locked clasped hands, verbal inhibition,
posthypnotic response, selective amnesia and analgesia, etc) for 40
subjects who had been through a standard 15 minute trance induction
procedure, 40 subjects who had been through a brief sequence of "positive
suggestions" ("You can do these things and it will be a lot of fun. . ."),
and 40 "control" subjects.  The subjects in the "positive suggestions"
condition exceeded the performances of the subjects in the "trance
induction" condition (and the control subjects as well). A synopsis of many
of Barbers experimental papers, which numbered over 150 at last count, of
his critique of the hypnotic trance state hypothesis, and of his
alternative  interpretation of hypnosis, are found in his (1972) "Suggested
('Hypnotic") Behavior: The Trance Paradigm vs. An Alternative Paradigm."
Pp. 115-182 in Erica Fromm and Ronald E. Short (eds.)  _Hypnosis: Research
Developments and Perspectives_, Chicago: Aldine.  (You will find a short
synopsis of Barber's work and a limited set of references in my (1991)
book, _The Myth of the Madding Crowd_.  This is not a "PCT" interpretation
of hypnosis but it leans in a direction that might be recast in such terms.

A related aside.  What is going on in the hierarchy of perceptual control
systems when individuals ingest small, moderate, large amounts of alcohol?
Heroin? cocaine? marijuana?  Do these simply affect the operation, e.g.,
the loop gain, of every control system or might these turn off higher level
systems?  I would appreciate any comment on these matters (and on hypnosis)
from anyone on the loop.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU