HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.circplus
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:56:10 MST
              <CIRCPLUS@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         Dan Lester <ALILESTE@IDBSU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: (Copy) question for circ-plus

>We have recently purchased 3 Minolta 605z reader-printers with
>coin-ops that will only allow the user to put in exact change, and
>will not give change.  For obvious reasons we are now thinking of

We have a Minolta 606 (not the same, but similar, I believe) that has the
dime only mechanism on it.  We have had a Hecon card system added to it.
We use Hecon cards for almost all of our copy machines and microfilm
reader printers, and an appropriate amount is deducted from the balance
on the card.  It did take some wiring modifications by the Minolta repair
person, but it was not difficult, they say.  It works fine.

We also have a coin changer in the microfilm area that takes dollars and
gives back ten dimes, as other bill changers in the building just return
quarters.

            dan

*****************************************************************************
* Dan Lester                          Bitnet:   alileste@idbsu              *
* Associate University Librarian      Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu    *
* Boise State University                                                    *
* Boise, Idaho  83725                 BSU and I have a deal: I don't speak  *
* 208-385-1234                        for them and they don't speak for me. *
*****************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3.1 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.circplus
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 08:59:56 EDT
              <CIRCPLUS@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         "Christie D. Stephenson" <cds2e@POE.ACC.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: software for training shelvers\
              PATTERSON, RESERVE LIBRARY,              UWEC" at Sep 14,
              92 12:40 pm

Lynda--

You might be interested in the Hypercard stack Kay Cutler did
for training shelvers in the Ed Lib.  It's pretty neat.  Could
be adapted for Fine Arts use, with considerable work.

C.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 10:48:01 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:48:01 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Imagination objectives

[From Rick Marken (920910.1100)]

Chris Love (920909.15:30)

> I read Bill's post on imagination
>[Bill Powers (920906)] and felt that something was either left un-
>explained or missing.  This dealt specifically with the objective(s)
>of imagination.

This was an EXCELLENT post Chris. I think you're getting this modelling
stuff down, particularly the idea that a good model does it all "on its
own" with no help from the modeller. In the discussion of imagination
in BCP Bill admitted that he had no idea what "threw the switch" that
moved the system from imagination to regular control mode and back. Your
post reminds us that whatever does throw the switch must have a reason for
doing it -- and being a PCT type you probably (like me) imagine the
reason is to control something. So the imagination switch is probably
the output of a control system; I agree with your suggestion that this
control system is probably involved in the control of some aspect of
reorganization -- we imagine in order to learn.  I also agree with your sug-
gestion that it would be nice to have a system that alters the imagination
connections through the perceptual and output systems so that new
types of imaginings can occur. I agree that just playing back error
only lets us imagine in the context of the existing struture of the
control hierarchy. Your suggestion, I think, is designed to explain
how I can put together perceptions I can already produce, but in
novel and creative ways, to see if they might satisfy higher order
goals. So I can produce in imagination perceptions that I have
never controlled -- and probably would never be able to
control, like a perception of myself jumping off the roof of my house
and flying acsoos the street to the neighbor's. I can imagine it;
can't control it. But it was probably the ability to produce such
imaginings that guided the reorganizations of the Wright Bros.

The problem now, of course, is to figure out how to do experiments
that would guide our modelling of imagination. I can't imagine, right
off hand, what those experiments would be, but I think they can be done;
I think many have already been done -- though probably not exactly
as we would have done them.

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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:01:25 CST
From:         Thomas Baines <bainest@SMTPLINK.EID.ANL.GOV>
Subject:      Dealing With Children

          ED- My little brother (now 50 yrs old, 6'1", 245) is a
          Federal Probations Officer.  He has had some success in
          reducing recitivism in his case load by starting with the
          questions "Do you like what has happened to you?  Would you
          like to avoid having it happen again?"  Like I said
          elsewhere about dogs & kids, start with trying to see what
          they see & what they think counts.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:31:10 EDT
From:         eric harnden <HARNDEN@AUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      stella; the first naive question

i've been working with stella on the mac for a while now, and the
recent set of inquiries with regard to its utility in pct modeling
motivated me to play with it. a couple of disconnected comments, and
a question, now arise...
1) the last time i talked to high performance systems, they did not mention
anything about porting stella to the pc (at least i think someone here asked
that question). at the same time, neither is dynamo going to go to the mac.
unfortunate, for while it is not nearly as slick, it is a lot more flexible
in some ways.
2) it occurred to me that the classic systsem dynamics diagram, as developed
by forrester, takes into account one of the central notions of pct, about which
mr powers was trying to educate me earlier... equations which represent
an entity's response to a change in a system level always take as input,
not the actual state of that level, but a transformation of it, often labeled
"perception of...".
3) i put the following plot into stella the other night:

      -------------------level<-------valve----------->source/sink
      --->perceived level               /\
                                        
                      \/                 
reference----------->error--------->rate of change
level                                    /\
                                         
                                     disturbance

where the only material flow is the increase/decrease of the level, and all
other connections are information flows. the first question is: does this
at all capture the basic pct structure (wihout the hierarchy)? it looks to
me like the basic cybernetic structure, and follows the essentials of
forrester's method. now, if 'the entity' is that part of the structure
which receive the perception, contains the reference, calculates the
error, and acts upon the rate of change, then i think i have some idea
of the distinction between the phrases 'controlling' and 'controlling
for'. but i might also have it all wrong. it seems to me that the entity
is controlling the environment (acting upon the rate of change) in order
to obtain (is controlling for) a certain perception. yes? no?
next question: is the disturbance a disturbance of the environment, as i
have shown it, or a disturbance of the perceptual transformation? or
both?
hmmm... i have also just thought of some other fundamental confusions on
my part, not the least of which is the unclear distinction between entity
and environment implied by the dependence of rate of change on error.
but let's start simple, shall we?

-----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >-----------
Eric Harnden (Ronin)
<HARNDEN@AUVM.BITNET> or <HARNDEN@AMERICAN.EDU>
The American University Physics Dept.
4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058
(202) 885-2748
---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >-------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.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:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 05:46:49 -0600
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Imagination

[From Bill Powers (920906.0600)]

I misspoke: it was Greg Williams, not Rick Marken, to whom my remark
about "active control" was addressed. Damn. There goes another neuron.

In reflecting on the conversation with Penni Sibun, I was reminded of
earlier discussions of the imagination connection. Those who are
interested will remember that we decided that the imagination
connection for a given control system had to route the output through
all the weightings used by the incoming perceptual function. Wrong
wrong wrong. This violates the simplicity of the idea, and anyway puts
the loop-back in the wrong place. I got it wrong way back in BCP
because of using diagrams in which there was only one input arrow to
the perceptual function.

It's the error signal that has to be looped back to become the
perceptual signal, like this

                      ^        |
                      |     ref sig
                      |        |
                  perc sig     |    error sig
                       ------ COMP ----
                      |                | (integrator?)
       switch?==>   /  \ <------------/| <== switch?
                  /       imag conn    |
                PERC                 OUTPUT
               FUNCT                FUNCTION
             /  |  \               /   |   \

Now it's very simple, because both the error signal and the perceptual
signal are one-dimensional. No weights, no keeping track of how many
input signals to the perceptual function there are, no multiple-pole
switch. Maybe one integrator is needed in the error signal line before
the output function. But that still leaves only one signal to be fed
back.

This suggests that what throws the switch is in the next higher level,
or in the relationship between levels. It puts the LOWER systems into
the imagination mode. This says that some of the lower systems can be
left in real mode while others supply imaginary information, or of
course all can be real or all imagining. The switch-thrower isn't a
model yet, but we're closer to one. Maybe the switch gets thrown when
the higher-level systems simply can't get their errors to go to zero.
Maybe it gets thrown when the lower system experiences protracted
error. Anyway, this ought to be a lot easier to put into that
spreadsheet model, Rick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,


Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:37:40 PDT
Reply-To:     sibun@parc.xerox.com
From:         Penni Sibun <sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM>
Subject: Re: Turing
              14 Sep 1992 13:14:46 -0700
              <92Sep14.131615pdt.11659@alpha.xerox.com>

penni sibun (920914.1300):

   [From Rick Marken (920914.1200)]

   >female.  maybe the analogy will be helpful.  how do we know if someone
   >is male or female?

   >if *sex* is decided in such a ``superficial'' way, then why not the
   >ability to think?

   This analogy rests on the assumption that behavior is to thinking as
   gender is to chromosomes.

no, it rests on the assumption that, like intelligence, sex is
something we make judgements about when we consider people or other
organisms.

  Apparently, you assume that the "superficial"
   signs of gender (malenes vs femaleness) are an output of chromosome
 structure:

   xy --> maleness
   xx --> femaleness

i said no such thing.  how could you possibly have got that from my
post?  i listed several counterexamples to your ``outputs.''  i think
you come to things w/ such preconceptions that i barely understand
what you're talking about when you summarize what you think i said.
some of this is undoubtedly my fault; i'm hardly perfect at presenting
my ideas.  but i find you especially difficult to communicate w/.

   So, the "sex text" looks at observed maleness or femaleness and guesses
   at the "real" sex of the person (their chromosome structure).

no.  the sex test looks at a person and guesses whether they are
female or male.  period.  the sex test doesn't care about what's
inside.  it only has access to what you consider ``superficial''
things.

   The above
   assumptions make it reasonable to think that you can "work backwards",
   inferring chromosome structure from appearance.

no.  the test doesn't work backwards; it doesn't have anything to work
backwards to.

   I agree that this is just how Turing looked at his test for mind.

well, we're obviously not agreeing at all.

    He
   assumed that "mental behavior" was an output of mental structure, and
   "non-mental behavior" was what resulted when there was no mind:

   mind --> mental behavior
   no-mind --> non-mental behavior.

no.  when you go on like this, i see so clearly preston's point that
some people are so locked into the behaviorist/mentalist mindframe
that they can't talk about anything else.  (did you ever get her
paper?)

i think you're a smart and articulate person, btw.  i just think
you're terrifically wedged in this area.  it's not my job to unwedge
you; but maybe one day one of my stories will make you look at things
just a little differently.

cheers.

				--penni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"csg-l@uiucvmd.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:07:00 CDT
From:         PAPANICOLAOU@UTMBEACH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Turing

From Tom Bourbon [920914]
Penni Subin [920913] gave what I think is a very nice reply to Rick
Marken's [920910] post concerning the Turing Test.  The example of
judging another person's sex (gender) is elegant.
   In nearly all of my recent presentations and demonstrations of
PCT tasks in which people, or hands, or models, or combinations of
those interact, I have opted to sodel interacting with a
person, to make the point that you can scarcely tell the difference
between that condition and two people interacting.  That seems to
me to be precisely the sort of test-demonstration Turing had in mind
in his 1950 article.  I have come to think of such demonstrations as
The Second Test (along with the test for the controlled variable) that
PCT can off as an alternative to "business as usual" in the behavioral,
life and cognitive sciences.  AI people (at least some of them) do
still accept a Turing Test as evidence concerning a model or theory.  That
gives us a great opening to show the wide range of phenomena in which the
PCT model passes the test.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 11:39:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Raising Kids/Education = ?

From Greg Williams (920906)

>Ed Ford on raising children (920905:2335)

Both Pat and I think that Ed's comments are wise. His techniques are
important, in our opinion.

As outlined by Ed, his suggested interactions with children include
instantiations of purposefully influencing them -- what I have been calling
"manipulation." Recall: influencing another is altering some variables
associated with the other, and manipulating another is influencing certain of
the other's "don't-care" percepts so as to control certain of one's own
percepts.

The trouble is, while Pat and I and certainly Ed believe that such
manipulation can have tremendously important consequences, Bill Powers has
characterized the consequences of manipulation as "unimportant" to the
manipulee. Bill, are the consequences of manipulation largely or even solely
important only to the manipulator?

Also, Bill and Rick: You both said in posts of yesterday that "education is
not control." Please explain what education is, as related to PCT notions. Can
the concept of education even be approached via PCT ideas?

Thanks for clarifying,

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.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:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 14:12:19 -0600
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      controlling reference signals; non-controlling control

[from Bill Powers (920905.1400)]

Rick Marken (920905) --

A great great post, Rick. You've picked up a problem that keeps
flitting into my mind and flitting right out again. Of course
reference signals aren't set by external events OR genetics. They have
to be flexible if the hierarchy is to work. They are the MEANS of
control of higher systems. Only the top level of reference signal
seems to be a problem, and even that problem goes away when you
realize it has to be adjustable by reorganization. The only reference
signals that are DETERMINED are the intrinsic ones -- and the
"history" that affects them is so slow that human history doesn't even
count.

You are right about Greg's non-controlling control, but you missed a
good opportunity for a needle. Actually, I'm really a powerful non-
controlling controller, as are most people. I'm not doing anything to
control about 4.999 (999...) billion people. Just think: all of those
people under my power, and I don't have to lift a finger.

Although educators are often controllers (with truant officers to
supply the force), I agree with you, Rick, that Education is not
control.

And anyway, who's smart enough at this stage of the game to know how
to raise kids without EVER controlling them?

----------------------------------------------------------
Best,


Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:20:31 -0500
From:         "Gary A. Cziko" <g-cziko@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Portable Anti S-R Demo

[from Gary Cziko 920910.1000]

Rick Marken should already know that my all-time favorite experimental
report in PCT is his "The Cause of Control Movements in a Tracking Task"
(which is included in his book _Mind Readings_ available for only $18 from
CSG Book Publishing, 460 Black Lick Rd., Gravel Switch, KY 40328).

This is such a neat experiment because it yields results which make
absolutely no sense without PCT since it clearly shows how you can get the
same "responses" when the "stimuli" are very different.  So I was trying to
figure out how this could be done with rubber bands.  Here's as far as I
got.

Use the classic setup of two rubber bands looped together and thus joined
by a knot.  The disturber inserts a piece of chalk in his or her end (of
the rubber-band, that is!) and the controller does likewise.  They start
out so that the knot is over the reference spot and the controller is asked
to keep the knot there.  Now, the disturber slowly draws a pattern or
letter or writes a short word while the controller compensates (controls
the knot).  Then they move to a different spot on the board and do it again
(same disturbance pattern used).

Now, the purpose of this is to show that while the disturbance and response
patterns are (essentially) the same in the two runs, THE MOVEMENT OF THE
KNOT (the "stimulus") IS NOT THE SAME.  This is the magic of control.  But
while it is easy to get a record of the behavior of the controller and the
disturber, I don't see an easy way to get a record of the KNOT'S movement.

Hm, maybe if I use TWO sets of rubber bands and use long pieces of chalk
(attached to the rubber bands at the bottom and top) I can join the rubber
bands on another piece of chalk  and have it leave a record of the knots
movement.  I'll have to try this out.  Meanwhile, I would appreciate any
other suggestions for this portable demo.--Gary

P.S.  I promised at Durango that I would revise my portable demo list and
make it avaible on CSGnet.  I haven't forgotten, but I am still working out
a few more demos to include and describe (as above).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary A. Cziko                    Telephone: (217) 333-8527
Educational Psychology           FAX: (217) 333-5847
University of Illinois           E-mail: g-cziko@uiuc.edu
1310 S. Sixth Street             Radio: N9MJZ
210 Education Building
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6990
USA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:44:00 GMT
From:         Henry James Bicycles Inc <0005096370@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Flat Earth Society

[From Hank Folson (920907)]

>[From Bill Powers (920906.1830)]
>Rick Marken (920906) --
>Rick, I think Hank was trying to say that the Flat Earth Society
>(FES) is a deliberate put-on; that they support "wrong" ideas as
>a matter of principle. Is that right, Hank?

It is, but I messed up my communication. I was surprised to get
any response, as I did not intend to hit a controlled variable. A
more practiced practitioner would have stopped after:
>>If this group had formed before 1492, the name would then have
>>been the Round Earth Society.

But I added in an attempt at humor:
>> ...They are our brothers...<< Had I not linked PCT and the FES
the error signals would not have been created. Mea Culpa. This
has been a good PCT lesson for me. I'm learning.


I will not be active on the net for the next 3 weeks. I just
learned that I can share a booth at the major bicycle trade show
and must prepare. Part of my preparation will be rewriting a 50
page booklet promoting custom bicycle frames to reflect the
principles of PCT. This will be used in an ad campaign aimed at
potential buyers of custom frames. A couple of conversations with
people on the net have already led to significant changes.

Au Revoir,

Hank

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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"csg-l@uiucvmd.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:20:00 CDT
From:         PAPANICOLAOU@UTMBEACH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Turing, correction

From Tom Bourbon [920914b]
     Upon reading my copy of my post [920914] on Turing tests and Penni
Subin's post, I discovered that something is missing.

   "I have opted to sodel interacting" was typed as "I have opted to show
the model interacting"  Who knows where the other letters went.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU