HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:mmt@ben.dciem.dnd.ca>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:47:21 EST
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject: Re: Psych Studies/Model Tests

[Martin Taylor 930108 14:00]
(Rick Marken 930108.0900)

Is this the time to get back to the unresolved discussions on statistics?
I don't think so, but I'm willing.  I'm starting off my information-theory-
leads-to-PCT with a basic discussion of probability and statistics, anyway,
so it will be part of that.  But we could do it separately if you want.

Quite apart from that, I have a real problem with how a PCT approach to
psychophysics could differ from a conventional approach.  In a typical
psychophysical experiment, a subject is asked to discriminate between
two possibilities for which event was presented on a particular trial, or
to react as fast as possible with one of two discriminative responses to
a pattern that might be of type A or of type B.  There's no opportunity
for the subject to reduce the error of a perception.  The action is
performed, the experimenter records which action it was, and the whole
cycle starts again with no informational connection between the last
action and the next presentation.  The only feedback that can do anything
is an indication as to whether the action was right or wrong, and that
feedback can only contribute to reorganization, not to the actions or
perceptions on the next trial.

[Actually, there are contingencies between trials that can be used to
determine that the observer is not behaving in the same mode all through
the experiment.  These are very small, though important in determining
what is going on inside the subject:  Taylor, Forbes & Creelman, J. acoustical
Society of America, 1983, 74, 1367-1374 (Rick--I'll include it with the
other ones I' sending you).  They aren't relevant to the question I am
raising here.]

Why should taking a PCT approach make any difference to the way psychophysical
experiments are done or interpreted?  The results of psychophysical
experiments can put limits on the possible Perceptual Input Functions
and can perhaps speak to whether the perception is differentiated or the
output integrated (Avery Andrews 920101.2030).  But from the other
direction, I really can't see the connection.  The subject is presumed
to be satisfying a reference something like perceiving the experimenter
to be pleased with his/her performance, and the result of that is the
set of actions that have no direct feedback consequences on the experimental
presentations.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:bnevin@ccb.bbn.com>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:58:32 EST
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      getting back to Ed

(Ed Ford (930101:1305) ) --

>Coming to one's senses is a rather interesting phrase.  If by
>meditation you mean attempting to establish some kind of contact or
>dialoque or closer relationship with what AA people call a higher
>power, I'll agree.

I think that putting limits on what the outcome of the process
will be is a mistake.  The effect is apparently much the same,
whatever terms people use to explain to describe their
perceptions to others (and to themselves, if they wish).  It is
certainly convenient to have a socially sanctioned conceptual
framework into which to fit out-of-category experiences.  That
doesn't make the framework or interpretations in it right.

>>The distinction between religious experience and religious
>>institutions is fundamental.  Ideally, the latter support
>>the former.  But given the former, you don't need any of the latter.

>I would say that a function of the institution is to preserve, hand
>down, teach, and foster meditation (or prayer).  Without the
>institution, meditation will no longer have teachers and a
>tradition on which to rely.

Given the religious experience (not as a transient "high" but as
a settled attainment) you no longer need the institution that was
intended to enable you to achieve that.  But you may choose to
work through institutional forms to benefit others--the familiar
boddhisatva path.

My point was only (and I know you know this, Ed) that Rick's
fulminations against religion are against its institutional
aspects, which for him apparently have no connection with living
experiences of the sort that those institutions supposedly should
foster, but often in fact stifle.  Given the experiences and the
association of them for whatever reason with the institutional
forms, one may be willing to put up with the institutional
baggage.  Lacking such associations, the grounds for patience
seem to reduce to social conformity.

There are many forms of meditation.  Prayer carried out in
certain ways is similar to meditation with a mantram.  I was
referring to the simplest form described by the Buddha, attention
to sensations in the body in a systematic and focussed way.  This
is not in itself the aim, it is a means.  By this practice
extranea fall away.  If what remains when all imaginings fed by
fear and longing fall away is the perception of oneself in dialog
with a higher being, then that is what is.  I would not pre-judge
for or against that perception.

        Bruce
        bn@bbn.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU,@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu:g-cziko@uiuc.edu>
X-Sender: cziko@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:31:08 -0600
From:         CZIKO Gary <g-cziko@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Laplace Transform

[from Gary Cziko 930112.2230 GMT]

Anybody out there want to try to explain in 100 words or less what a
Laplace transform is and why someone interested in PCT should know about
it?--Gary

------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Cziko                     Telephone: 217-333-8527
Educational Psychology           FAX: 217-244-7620
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
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:mmt@ben.dciem.dnd.ca>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:25:50 EST
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject: Re: Testers/Testees

[Martin Taylor 930106 13:10]
(Bill Powers 930105.2130)

>The individual, however, is well-advised to avoid being part of
>such mass systems [tests. MMT], because the tradeoff is never in the
>individual's favor.

What, never? Well, hardly ever! (Gilbert & Sullivan)

I would have thought that it depended on the likely outcome whether it was
in an individual's interest to submit to tests, be they educational, medical,
or otherwise.  If I want to live longer, I have a better chance if the
cancer is detected earlier (by a test that is not guaranteed to give a
correct result, but which does so more often than not).  If I want to
get into a university, and I know they go by exam results, I will submit
to a test if I think I will get a good mark, though the good mark is not
guaranteed.  There are lots of reasons why an individual might want to
be part of mass tests, even if the results would not be applied directly
to that person.  The indirect benefits resulting from the statistical
findings, which alter public policy in a way that generally improves
matters (though not for everybody), might make it worthwhile to submit to
the test.

You can't demand perfection from the results of your actions on the world.
You have reorganized so that your actions tend to move your perceptions in
the direction of their reference levels, but it is not only for reasons of
disturbance that the actions sometimes fail.  It is more often (at higher
levels particularly) that you have not had the statistical opportunity to
reorganize to match the way Boss Reality works.  Situations never recur
exactly, and at higher levels, by their very nature, there are more important
interactions that easily take you into situations where the results of actions
are different from what you expect, working from memory of apparently
related situations.

Reorganization works by statistics: you really can't do better when dealing
with the real world.  The nature of reorganization, by whichever of the 12
different mechanisms, ensures that you do as well as you possibly can.  But
you can't get perfection, so you have to go with probabilities.  If the
probabilities seem likely to lead you into a perceptual state further from
your references than you now are, don't do whatever it is, whether it is
submitting to a test (that might get you fired from your job unfairly), or
running in front of an oncoming car.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:andaling@durras.anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 09:06:22 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      hypotheses non fingo

[Avery Andrews 930107.9000]

My impression was that in Newton's day, physical causation was supposed to
require physical contact (`physics was things bumping into each other',
I heard Chomsky say it once),  so what Newton was not doing was
providing a generative model _of the expected kind_, since he had
action at a distance, without things bumping into each other.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:Marken@courier4.aero.org>
Posted-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 08:54:44 -0800
X400-Trace: US**AEROSPACE; arrival Mon, 11 Jan 93 08:54:44 -0800 action Relayed
P1-Message-Id: US**AEROSPACE; 930111165444
Ua-Content-Id: CSI NC V2.1b
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:54:44 -0800
From:         Marken@COURIER4.AERO.ORG
Subject:      transformations and learning

[From Rick Marken (930111.0900)]

Bruce Nevin (Mon 930111 11:11:11) --

>The following outline of ideas from a fellow BBNer, Al Boulanger,
>seems to me like a fruitful direction to look for certain aspects
>of higher level control and reorganization as involved in
>learning at those levels.

Having read it I must ask "why"?

Best

Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 08:45:10 -0800
X400-Trace: US**AEROSPACE; arrival Tue, 5 Jan 93 08:45:10 -0800 action Relayed
P1-Message-Id: US**AEROSPACE; 930105164510
Ua-Content-Id: CSI NC V2.1b
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 08:45:10 -0800
From:         Marken@COURIER4.AERO.ORG
Subject:      CSG 60s Revival, demos

[From Rick Marken (920105.0800)]

Gary Cziko, Mary Powers --

Who doesn't know Arlo (and Woody) Guthrie?
Gary -- it looks like I'll have to bring my guitar
along to the next CSG meeting (I actually will
because I'm driving). Then you can pluck out
Alice's Restaurant for Dag (and me -- I love it);
and I can do my "Bob Dylan for CSG" repetoire,
which includes  the song "Too much a' nothin'"
with the immortal line:

" when there's too much a nothin'
   no one's in control"

Avery Andrews (930105.10.00)--

>Switching topics, another problem with Gary's demo is that it doesn't
>defuse the `standard brushoff' of PCT -- `we've known about this
>feedback stuff for more than thirty years, and that it doesn't really
>do very much for you'.  I don't believe that any collection of `mere' demos
>of the phenomenon of control can overcome this objection, & I'm not too
>optimistic about the prospects for heaps of quantitative data either,
>no matter how precise.

I completely agree. Greg's "devil's advocacy" shows that if people don't
want to believe in control, they don't have to. I think people throughout
the behavioral sciences have a serious committment to the input-output
view of behavior (and it is a "view" -- just as much as feedback control is
a view). No amount of evidence can "demolish" someone's world view;
people who wanted to view the earth as a fixed sphere at the center of the
universe had no trouble dealing with evidence suggesting that it was not;
moreover, some of the most compelling evidence was in favor of the stationary
earth view -- just as some of the most compelling evidence is in favor of the
input-output view. If the world is moving, why aren't the tree always
bent back by the wind created by this spin? On a nice calm day it's
really ridiculous to imagine that you are standing on a hugh globe that
is spining at high speed; yeah, sure it is. But most of us now accept this
(because of all the other evidence). In a tracking task the subject MUST be
responding to movements of the cursor  -- how else would s/he know what
to do. But PCT says that the cursor is NOT the cause of responses; the
cursor is a controlled variable that is both a cause and result of responses;
yeah, sure. But people will eventually accept this too -- though, as Avery
says, not on the basis of any particular demonstration of the problems of
believing otherwise.

Best regards

Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:psy_delprato@emunix.emich.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:19:46 -0500
From:         psy_delprato@EMUNIX.EMICH.EDU
Subject:      Skinner and Deprivation: Reply

[FROM: Dennis Delprato (930106)]

>(Bill Powers (930105.2130))

>Did Skinner ever face the problem of the specificity of the
>relationship between deprivation and reinforcement? Why is food
>deprivation the best way to make food a reinforcer, water
>deprivation the best for making water reinforcing, exercise
>deprivation the best way to make ... etc. ? And, of course, the
>converse of these questions: why does free access to food, water,
>exercise, etc. make these things, specifically these things in
>1:1 correspondence, less effective as reinforcers?

I am fairly certain he would invoke evolution.  When the organism
is deprived of certain opportunities (to eat, sometimes exercise...),
it is more likely to eat, be active... when given the opportunity
than under conditions of nondeprivation.  "In the evolutionary
sense this 'explains' why water deprivation strengthens all
conditioned and unconditioned behavior concerned with the intake
of water" (Science and Human Behavior, 1953, p. 142).  Also,
ontogenic factors can come into play, e.g., conditioning or
"history of reinforcement."

>You say "he viewed deprivation procedures as simply controlling
>variables (= variables of which behavior is a function) in his
>terminology." Did he never suspect that there was a pattern here?
>Didn't it ever occur to him that something is reinforcing BECAUSE
>of deprivation? Of course that would have led him into deep
>waters, philosophically, because he would have had to see that
>lack of something is a deprivation only if the organism wants it
>and actively (spontaneously!) seeks it out. You can deprive a
>fish of air indefinitely without making air reinforcing to a
>fish.

I intepret him as taking the position that one way to make
an object or activity reinforcing is by way of deprivation.
Thus, his theory agrees with the statement that something is
reinforcing (functions as a reinforcer) because of deprivation.
The level of deprivation is an environmental variable
that an experimenter can manipulate as an independent variable.

He would object to adding that deprivation leads to a want
that in turn enters into the control of behavior.  To him,
want is an inner cause that is of no use in predicting
and controlling behavior.  He would ask how would we
produce a want, how do we know what the organism wants?
Only by environmental manipulations and/or observations
of overt behavior.  And he might go on and point out that
want is a prescientific concept that his experimental
analysis of behavior finds unnecessary to go about the
job of understanding behavior.

Note the relevance of phylogeny (in Skinner's view) to the
fish case.

Dennis Delprato
De Psychology
Eastern Mich. Univ.
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:andaling@fac.anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:03:20 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: Generative vs. Explanatory

[Avery Andrews 930111.0904]

 (Gary Cziko 930110.2106)

 >It also appears to me that Chomsky's grammar is also generative but not
 >explanatory since he uses no physiology in his theorizing.  Would Avery and
 >Bruce agree with this?

Does this mean that Newton was non-explanatory?  If so, yes.  But I think
this goes beyond what many people mean by `explanatory'.  What  Newton did
to an extreme degree, and what Chomskyans do to an immensely lesser degree,
is reduce many apparently disparate facts to fewer common principles,
& this is all that many people mean by `explanation'.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 09:21:00 CST
From:         "HRLOT1::THURMAN" <THURMAN%HRLOT1.decnet@HQHSD.BROOKS.AF.MIL>
Subject:      HyperCard experiments

[From Richard Thurman (930105.0815)]


Rick Marken (921229.0800) stated:
>By the way -- all this work (including the modeling) was done in HyperCard
>with HyperTalk (inspired by some offline discussions with Rich Thurman).

Gary Cziko (930101.1623) described a "control of musical melody" experiment
and asks:
>Could HyperCard be used for a study like this?

Rick Marken (930101.1600) replied:
>I think you could do your melody
>control experiment in HyperCard -- but maybe someone else could comment
>on this who has used sound with HyperCard -- I haven't.

Gary and Rick --
After reading your posts I experimented a little with the sound
function in HyperCard.  It may be able to handle the kind of
experiment you have in mind.  For example I was able to play
around with it for about 5 minutes and came up with the following
code.

----------- Place this code into a card script ---------------
on mousedown
  repeat until the mouse is up
    play "harpsichord" tempo 150 ((342 - item 2 of the mouseloc) div 4)
    wait until the sound is "done"
  end repeat
end mousedown
--------------------------------------------------------------

This tells HyperCard to repeat playing notes as long as the mouse
button is pressed.  The "harpsichord" is a prerecorded sound that
can be played back at a different tempo (in this case 150) and at
different frequencies.  The frequency part is the rather strange
looking ((342 - item 2 of the mouseloc) div 4).  It is using the
mouse location to determine the frequency.  The strange computation
is simply to make middle "C" play when the mouse pointer is about
in the middle of the screen.

To add a disturbance, simply add a number to the frequency parameter.
Each increment (or decrement) of 1 would increase (or decrease) the
frequency by one-half step (from C to C# for example).

So what do you get when you do the script?
It sounds like a harpsichord playing the scales.

Can you play "Happy Birthday" with it?
Well... I can't.  But I think anybody with even the slightest hint
of musical ability might be able to make a recognizable tune with
it.  (I think Pacobel's Cannon might be beyond its capability
though.  But if anybody wants to give it a try I would love to hear
it.)

Can it be used as an experimental vehicle?
Yes.  With a few more lines of code you can introduce disturbances
and record responses.  The responses measures will probably be
accurate to within 16 milliseconds.  (Not a great degree of accuracy
but probably OK for this purpose.)

Hope this helps.

Rich

--------------------------------------------------
Richard Thurman
Air Force Armstrong Lab
BLDG. 558
Williams AFB AZ. 85240-6457

(602) 988-6561
Internet: Thurman%HRLOT1.Decnet@HQHSD.Brooks.AF.Mil
---------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU,@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu:g-cziko@uiuc.edu>
X-Sender: cziko@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Unverified)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:19:37 -0600
From:         "CZIKO Gary A." <g-cziko@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Too Fast for Feedback?

[from Gary Cziko 930112.1800 GMT]

Avery Andrews 9201112.2108 asks:

>I guess the obvious question to ask about any movements that do look
>too fast for feedback is how they go under novel or unpredictable
>dynamic conditions.  E.g. how does the concert pianist make out with
>lead weights attached to her fingers.

If throwing a ball is fast enough for you, then the demonstration I did at
the last CSG meeting might be of interest.  It is quite simple and has the
advantage over your example of not requiring a piano, pianist, nor little
lead weights.

I had a subject stand about 15 feet away from a blackboard on which I had
drawn a circle of about 2 feet diameter.  I then let the subject practice
throwing a tennis ball underhanded until he was quite accurate in having
the ball bounce off the blackboard within the circle.

I then attached a long "rubber band" to the subject's wrist of his throwing
hand (I made this out of 1/2-inch wide strips of rubber cut from old
bicycle tubes and tied together) and would occasionally yank on it from
various directions after the throwing action had started.  I found that
with Greg Williams as a subject, the disturbances had very little effect
indicating that Greg was not using a blind, motor program for throwing.
Issac Kurtzer did not do as well.  It seems to me that he was trying to
compensate for the expected disturbances by predicting them at a higher
level and this would throw him off.

It is even more interesting to be a subject for this demonstration.  The
experience is one of just "willing" to get the ball in the circle and the
muscle of the arm seem to compensate on their own for the disturbances.

--Gary
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary A. Cziko                    Telephone: 217-333-8527
Educational Psychology           FAX: 217-244-7620
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
From: Marken@COURIER4.AERO.ORG
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Finding a I-O Function
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:07:26 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU,@pucc.Princeton.EDU:Marken@courier4.aero.org>
Posted-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 10:07:26 -0800
X400-Trace: US**AEROSPACE; arrival Thu, 7 Jan 93 10:07:26 -0800 action Relayed
P1-Message-Id: US**AEROSPACE; 930107180726
Ua-Content-Id: CSI NC V2.1b

[From Rick Marken (930107.1000)]

Gary Cziko (930107.1536 GMT)

>Bill, can you send me some cursor-handle data from a well-controlled
>tracking task?

Did you get the conflict stack OK, Gary? I can send you a way to
get GOOD tracking data very easily using HyperCard. You can probably
also write the genertic algorithms to find those I-O functions (good
luck) in HyperTalk. See me after class.

Regards

Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:urrobert@ecnuxa.bitnet>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:46:34 CST
From:         URROBERT@ECNUXA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Dag's Misc.

[From Dick Robertson] (010593.1630cst)
Dag, I really appreciated your "emily post of CSG" article.  I want to study
it carefully,
Cheers, Dick.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU