X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 21:29:54 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:29:54 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      The Bible is Close Too

[From Rick Marken (920825.2100)]

I feel a loose canon coming on.

Forgive me, Bill, for I care not what I do.

penni sibun (quoting Agre I think)  says:

>faced w/ an empirical phenomenon to explain, our
> first explanatory recourse should be to dynamics,
>not to machinery.

and Powers replies:

>I don't call that an explanatory recourse; it's just
>describing the dynamics of the phenomenon
>(usually from the standpoint of an unspoken
>theory).

and Martin Taylor says

>But it is precisely the dynamics of the control
>hierarchy that describe the modelled behavior.

and I say:

Talk about generous interpretations.  The Agre
quote was ruling out mechanisms (which I read as
"models") to explain observations. In that context,
dynamics means, to me, the time course of
behavioral phenomena. Bill read it exactly that
way too, apparently -- dynamics refers to a
DESCRIPTION, not an explanation of a phenomenon.
If mechanisms are ruled out then its bye-bye
control hierarchy (an invented explanatory
mechanism designed to explain the dynamics of
the phenomenon of control).

>it seems to me that you and she both have the
>same intention of simplifying mechanism to a
>point at which it can be directly tested through
>the dynamics.

My intention is to explain the phenomenon of
control.  The first order of business is to develop
experimental situations where we can demonstrate
the phenomenon reliably and in detail (maybe it is
these details that you would call "dynamics"?).
Then we see if we can build a control model to
produce the results.  Dynamics, per se, are not
fundemental to PCT; although the world is dynamic
(and, hence, so are the actions that are part of the
process of controlling perceptual consequences of
that world).

Martin says:

>Penni wrote back to me asking why she kept
>getting "jumped on" for making these kinds of
>comment.  I don't know why.  I would have
>expected compliments.

I think Bill Powers has been MORE than diplomatic
in his response to the quote by Agre. But the fact
of the matter is (and since nobody likes me
anyway I'll say it) that the Agre quote was a pretty
concentrated heap of prattle.  No one means to
"jump on" anyone -- as I said, there seems to be a
good deal of tolerance on the net.  But if, when
turning the words that are posted on the net into
our own imaginings, we come up with nonsense
(and that's the best I could do with the Agre quote)
then we (I anyway) say it.  This doesn't mean that we
think Agre (or penni or anyone) is dumb. He is just
WRONG (at least from my perspective). But it may
be that I'm turning his words into all the wrong
imaginings -- so show me what you mean with a
model (mathematical or computer or mechanical);
then there might be less misunderstanding.

I'm willing to believe that the Agre quote is the
embodiment of the greatest wisdom of the ages.
But it sounded like complete drivel to me (and Bill
tried to politely explain why it did so to him as
well). It would really help if penni (or anyone else
who has an alternative to PCT) could describe ways
we could demonstrate the meanings of the words
to ourselves.  If you want to know how to
demonstrate the phenomenon (and model) of
control to yourself, I suggest ordering my Mind
Readings book for suggestions.

Martin says:

>There is some kind of a fog here.  Could it be the
>smoke from our respective burnouts?

The fog seemed to be entirely in the Agre quote.

Avery Andrews (920825) says:

>This discussion is gotten completely out of hand,
>and, like Martin, I'm rather baffled by it.

I respectfully submit that there is no way that
prose of the sort attributed to Agre could lead
anywhere but to an "out of hand" discussion.

>I suspect that people haven't done enough
>homework on the other guys' stuff to justify the
>things they're saying about it.

And I suspect that this is a load of crap!  I get this
ALL THE TIME when I try to publish experimental
tests of other people's theories.  I have read more
articles on other peoples theories and models than
I even want to admit. I've desperately tried to find
testable working versions of those models so that
people could not say what you are saying.  But no
matter what I do, if I create a situation that
exposes the failures of the model, I am quickly told
that I don't understand the model or that the
model doesn't really work that way. Either I'm
really stupid (a serious possibility -- just ask my
kids) or there is a very cute shell game going on
out there in ScienceLand that I hadn't intended to
play.

>I rather suspect that `interactionists' have an
>inadequate appreciation of how feedback control
>systems actually work.

Actually, what they have is no idea what feedback
control system DO. They know zip about control so
they obviously have no interest in figuring out how
control systems work. Many of these people (ai types mainly)
have no apparent interest in science, for that matter.
They just like to play with models (or philosophical
abstractions) and have no idea that there is a REAL
phenomenon out there (called control) BEGGING for
an explanation.

>but I also think that PCT is pretty shaky in the
>area of perception, where Chapman in
>particular has done useful work.

What in the world is "shaky" about the PCT view of
perception???? What perceptual processing has
Chapman put in his models that is so "useful". The
Agre and Chapman article that I read reflected one
of the most naive and unsophisticated views of
perception I've ever seen coming out of grown-ups.
Have you read Behavior: The control of
perception?? Have you ever seen a behavioral
model with a more sophisticated, deeper,
functional understanding of perception (maybe you
mean the brilliant perceptual model of stimulus
sampling theory? dynamical systems theory?
what???).

>But they really are very similar.

And the biblical description of genesis is "very
similar" to the cosmological/evolutionary
description of genesis.

Doesn't anyone read my rants? Remember. All
these people with theories that are "very similar"
to PCT forget that little part about how organisms
CONTROL and that what they control is
PERCEPTION. Did anyone read my "Blind men"
paper. Did anyone read Bill's Psych Review article.
Should I write it in RED. How about repeating it:

Behavior is controlled perception;
Behavior is controlled perception;
Behavior is controlled perception;
Behavior is controlled perception

That doesn't make it true, but I hope it does make
it NOTICEABLE. Now ask all these people with
similar theories if the above collection of phrases
strikes them as being a good description of their
model of behavior.

>Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that people
>are too eager to be believed rather than
>understood.

I don't want to be believed. I want to be
understood. That's why we develop all these demos
and experiments and models. No need for belief;
just LOOK and TEST.

>It should be fine if Penni or anyone
>else is skeptical about the truth of PCT

Absolutely. And she is free to maintain her
skepticism.  I'm not objecting to her skepticism.
I'm only saying that the stuff quoted in Agre is
drivel. But I am willing to be convinced that I am
wrong. Just show me how Agre's theory explains
the one phenomenon that I know exists (because I
can demonstrate it) and that seems to characterize
everything that we call human behavior --
CONTROL.

>I wish I had time to spend the morning trying to
>hose this down, but I don't, so I'll just end with a
>relevant quotation:

 >One can seldom be sure whether the silence of
>other scholars indicates agreement or
>disagreement, indifference or incomprehension.

  >  Wilbur Maas, _Greek Metrics_.

I'll give you odds that its the last three.

There. Now Bill can play GOOD COP.

Regards

The loose canon

(Yes, I know how to spell cannon)


     **************************************************************

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)