X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 09:35:57 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:35:57 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject: Re: Exploration and Reorganization

[From Rick Marken (920902.0930)]

Martin Taylor (920902 11:15), in response to my slogan:

> "All PURPOSEFUL behavior is the control of perception".

says:

>It also comes perilously close to tautology

Well, slogans are slogans.

see Powers (920901.1000) where he says:

>Rick said it: all control behavior is control of perception.

etc

I said:

>Exploration and reorganization can "look" the same; but I think
>you could tell the difference using the test.

And Martin said:

>They aren't even in the same domain, so I don't see how they could "look" the
>same.

I was not clear. I think of "exploration" and "reorganization" as words
describing potential mechanisms underlying an observed behavior; I think
of them as descriptions of models. I interpret your comment above to mean
that you think of exploration as a description of behavior and reorganization
as a description of a model. In this case, there is indeed nothing to compare.
And I would argue that much of the behavior that would be described
as exploration is actually the result of a reorganization process; other
behavior that would also be called exploration is actually systematic,
control behavior.  For example, when a rat is placed in a test chamber
it "explores" -- it sniffs around, climbs the walls, pushes on stuff, etc.
It produces a lot of changing perceptions for itself; I think many people
would describe this as exploration. Now, what is causing this behavior?
One explanation is that it is caused by systematic variation in the
rats' references for various perceptions, this variation being caused by a
higher order system trying to achieve its own perceptual goal (which
might be verbally described as "a perception of high familiarity").
This explanation says that the exploration we see is a result of regular,
systematic control processes -- and this could be tested using versions
of the test for the controlled variable.

Another possible PCT explanation of the SAME behavior would be that it
is the result of reorganization. This explanation would be particularly
plausible if we knew that the rat had not eaten for a day before being
placed in the test cage. If the "exploratory behavior" is the result
of reorganization then we would expect to see the variability of the
behavior gradually eliminated as control of some particular aspect of
the enviroment had effects that reduced intrinsic error.

So that was the point of my comment; the SAME behavior (which could be
verbally described as "exploratory") could have different internal causes.

This whole discussion may not be relevant to what you were proposing --
which seems like it may have been that "exploration" is an alternative
to the reorganization model of learning.  If so, then I would have to
say "never mind". But, I would suggst that, along with your new model,
you could tell us what observations it is meant to explain (that are
not handled by the control hierarchy and reorganization model as it
already exists) and how we might test your explanation vs the explanation
provided by the existing model.

I have often carried on about the importance of the phenomenon of
control -- and knowing what that is before getting to involved in
the modelling. I would just like to add one more caveat; it is also
important to understand the difference between phenomena and the
models that are designed to explain them.  I know that you understand
that difference Martin. But I think that we all must be careful (when
we are talking about control phenomena) to be as clear as possible
(in our expression and our understanding) about the difference between
what we experience (phenomena) and what we imagine (models that we
hope will explain the phenomenon).

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