HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:45:57 EST
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject:      Re: Imagination in planning

[Martin Taylor 921216 11:30]
(Bill Powers 921215.1530)

Bill, I think my conscious impression of what one imagines during planning
is very like yours, and I can imagine both your and Mary's version of
the golf ball in the Coke bottle.  But none of it addresses the point
that I wanted to raise.  Perhaps I can try another approach.

All the perceptions involved in the conscious imagination are, by hypothesis,
obtained from perceptual signals in the same ECSs that would be involved
in actually executing the plan.  When the plan is executed in the real
world, these perceptions are derived from sensory signals that reflect
the reactions of the world to the actions evoked by the outputs of the
ECSs at the various levels involved.  When the plan is executed in
imagination, the perceptions are derived from sensory signals that
originate in some other place.

Whenever this question has been discussed, on CSG-L or in BCP, that
"other place" has been either a memory store or a looped-back output
signal that normally contributes to the reference signal of a lower
ECS.  In the first case, the "sensory" signal is one that has occurred
before in the real world; in the second, it is what would be sensed if
the reference to the lower ECS were to be satisfied by the actions of
that ECS controlling its perceptual signal.  But in the real world, some
imposed constraints may prevent that lower ECS from bringing its percept
to its reference level.  In the planning situation, these constraints
have never yet been encountered in the real world.  They are imagined
as a consequence of something else, such as verbal instructions.

In the versions of imagination that I have seen discussed, I see no place
for simulations of a real world never experienced.  It begins to feel as if
some construct other than an ECS is necessary so that a variety of
imaginary-world impedances can be placed in the imagination loop, to
match the impedances that might be found in the real world for which the
plan is being made.

It is important for the survival of the organism that the possible variety
of impedances be insertable in the imagination loop, especially in situations
where there is danger (implicit in some of the possible impedances that
might be encountered with different action choices).

I still feel that the necessary structures may exist within the hierarchy,
but I can't find them.  Pushing the question to lower levels only moves it;
the problem stays the same.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 11:21:10 CST
From:         Mark William Olson <mwog8061@UXA.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      tom' post

Ok, I just read Tom's long post and realize that there is a misunderstanding
 about what I am saying.  Did I say that the clinical report was a CHALLENGE to
 PCT?  If so, it is not what I meant.  I meant that here is a perfect
 opportunity for PCT to get involved--I knew when I first saw the videotape of
 the patient that it was a problem at the Relationship level--just like Tom
 said.  So....since we believe it is a Relationship problem and we know that
 there is a bilateral lesion to the superior parietal area, then lets start
 mapping our hierarchy.  We cannot map the hierarchy without neuroscience
 data--that seems very clear--how else will you know where some function occurs
 unless you know about what happens when areas are disabled (or brain scan
 data)?

I don't think we disagree very much --I think we agree alot.  My only
 disagreement is to think that you can do it ONLY topo-down.  You gotta have
 both.  The bottom limits the top ad the top inform the bottom.

I'd write alot more but I should have quit an hour ago.
MArk
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:35:50 CST
From:         Mark William Olson <mwog8061@UXA.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      continued neuro

(cont).
then you've got something related to memory, no matter how you describe it.
 Hubel and Wiesel (sp?) found some pretty interesting (although incomplete)
 stufff about the organization of the occipital cortex and probably never even
 heard of PCT.  Do you want to claim that they are wronb because they have the
 wrong paradigm?  We know alot of visual processing occurs in occipital.  We
 know that attention mechanisms are involved in at least prefrontal areas.  We
 know that the hippocampus is involved in at least one form of memory.  WE
 didn't need PCT to find that out, because we are working at a levelof analysis
 below PCT.  Sure PCT could help inform the processs but it isn't as necessary
 as it would be for levels above PCT--the rest of psychology.

Making good models occurs from going both bottom-up and top-down.  I think its a
 mistake to think we can come up with a hierarchy without looking at what the
 brain is doing.  The sorts of processes that can be disassociated via lesions I
 think is "weirder" than anything we would imagine without such research.  Ya
 gotta have both.

Mark
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, 13 Dec 1992 07:53:34 -0700
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Neural integrators; protecting muscles

[From Bill Powers (921213.0730)]

Avery Andrews (921213.11700) --

Yes, there are actual neural integrators. Given the sudden
appearance of an input signal of constant frequency, some neurons
will produce an output frequency that slowly rises, eventually
reaching an asymptote (a leaky integrator). When the input signal
is removed, the output frequency will slowly decline. I believe
these are well-known, but I'll leave it to others to supply exact
references. I don't have one.

As to your question yesterday: one could say that the combined
tendon and stretch reflexes are designed to prevent excessive
efforts from developing when obstacles are encountered, except
that this would be a result of their operation, not a cause.
Evolution designed them, so presumably the design does tend to
prevent injury to the organism.

There is, however, nothing that monitors for "excessive force"
and prevents it from happening. It is perfectly possible for
driving signals to the muscles to become so large that muscles
are pulled from their attachments or bones are broken. Did you
happen to see that grisly episode of some sports program on TV
where, during an arm-wrestling match, a contestant's forearm
snapped?  Bob Beamon, when he broke the world record for the long
jump at the Mexico City Olympics, pulled a muscle so severely
that he was out of action for a long time -- more than a year, I
think. Sports figures are always injuring their muscles simply by
using them too hard.

I don't think that looking for some possible advantage of a
behavioral organization goes a long way toward explaining it.
Such advantages are guesses anyway, and they're side-effects of
what really makes the system work. We could say that organisms
have control systems because control systems can survive better
than any other kind, but that doesn't explain what makes control
systems behave the way they do. Rather, it's the way control
systems behave that explains why organisms organized that way
have survived.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Best

Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:12:09 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Presenting PCT, Arm (Little Man)

[Avery Andrews 921215.1106]

There are alternatives to the `hard line proseletizing' approach to
presenting PCT on the one hand,  and watering it down on the other.
It is for example quite obvious
that `cognitive scientists' do not on the whole understand feedback
mechanisms well enough to make an intelligent assessment of what
can actually be done with them.  You can therefore simply present
yourself as someone who thinks that the potential of servomechanism
control has not been properly explpoited, and is trying to rectify
this.  In academia it is perfectly respectable to push some idea hard
to see what can be gotten out of it - what's not allowed is to claim
that the idea is the solution to everything.  & people are
hypersensitive such claims, since they are the hallmark of crackpottery,
and tend to perceive them even where they don't actually exist.

If servo control & its potential were properly understood, Arm-type
programs would be as thick on the ground as SHRDLU's and
unification-based parsers (like, for example, mine), & people long since
would have written programs where Arm-like components were used as
the executive modules of SHRDLU's, Chapman & Agre's game-players,
etc. (and surely Chapman would'nt have allowed Sonja to crash
into walls (`which looks really stupid') if had a real grasp of methods
which would have made it easy to keep her from doing it).

So the idea is just to present reasonably complicated PCT models of
specific phenomena, explain how they work, and let people draw their
own conclusions about the foundations of cognitive science.  But,
of course, these models have to be `of' things that people are already
interested in, for some reason, no matter how silly (unfortunately,
tracking seems to be a non-topic, but that's just a fact that has to
be lived with for at least a while), and they have to actually do things
that people haven't done, thinking that they were too hard, and doing
these things has to look easy.

Therefore I see Arm (Penni & agree that `Little Man' has the wrong flavor to
make the right impression on our friends out there in Scienceland) as
a big step forward in presenting PCT principles in an effective way,
at least to the audience that I am thinking about
(even better if it could be integrated into a SHRDLU or Agre &
Horswill style Toast program, something I've been doing some thinking
about, & might try to do if I can get Arm running under Unix/X-windows).
If people find such a simulation interesting and `cool', they will be
more inclined to find out something about the principles whereby it
was constructed.

But I do think that it would be more effective if the accompanying
documentation made a clear distinction between

  a) thinks that are well-supported by the neurophysiology (e.g.
       the lowest level systems)

  b) things that are suggested by the neurophysiology

  c) pure speculation

with references provided for (a) and (b).

 Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:40:19 CST
From:         John Gabriel <gabriel@EID.ANL.GOV>
Subject: Re: Presenting PCT, Arm (Little Man)

        (Avery Andrews 921215.1106)

>There are alternatives to the `hard line proseletizing' approach to
>presenting PCT on the one hand,  and watering it down on the other.
>It is for example quite obvious
>that `cognitive scientists' do not on the whole understand feedback
>mechanisms well enough to make an intelligent assessment of what
>can actually be done with them.  You can therefore simply present
>yourself as someone who thinks that the potential of servomechanism
>control has not been properly explpoited, and is trying to rectify
>this.  In academia it is perfectly respectable to push some idea hard
>to see what can be gotten out of it - what's not allowed is to claim
>that the idea is the solution to everything.  & people are
>hypersensitive such claims, since they are the hallmark of crackpottery,
>and tend to perceive them even where they don't actually exist.

Wish I'd been smart/perceptive enough to say that. Oh well, too soon
old and too late smart. NIIIICE, Avery. Congratulations. And congrats
to Penni too for her notes to the NET. They are always a delight. If
all you folk disappeared, I'd miss you something awful.

        John
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:56:21 -0600
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was cziko@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU
From:         "Gary A. Cziko" <g-cziko@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Teaching PCT

[from Gary Cziko 921213.2036 GMT]

len lansky (921211.1143) said:

>     Help!!!!   I have agreed to teach a seminar on control
>theory next quarter--begins in January--for ten weeks.  I have
>the books and have been trying to understand and to classify the
>traffic on the net?

>Does anyone have a worked out sequence
>for presenting the theory.

I gave a graduate course focussing on PCT last spring and will do it again
hopefully this coming spring (Mark Olson took the course last spring) under
the disguise of "Psychological Theories Applied to Education."

Last year I used quite a bit from the Robertson and Powers's _Introduction
to Modern Psychology_ as well as Powers's _Living Control Systems (I)_.
This year I plan to use stick with LCS and focus on the Runkel's book with
Ford's _Freedom from Stress_ thrown in for good measure.  I also use lots
of demos (Powers's and Marken's computer ones plus many of the manual,
portable ones I've started to catalogue--"keep pushing those eyeballs until
you fall down!"), show some of the videos that  Ed Ford made of Powers's
and will add in some new "trendy" developments in psychology
(connectionism, new developments in education, maybe some AI stuff).

I haven't worked out a complete plan for next semester yet; that is what
semester breaks are for.  I also rely heavily on my good looks, charm,
grace and wit to help sell PCT to the students on this campus (I wonder why
it's taking so long).

Maybe Clark McPhail can give you some tips as well since he sneaks PCT into
courses that are required of all sociology grad students on this campus
(don't ask me how he gets away with it).  He has less in the way of good
looks, charm, wit and grace to fall back on (remember, he's a sociologist),
so he probably has things better organized than I do.--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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:13:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      CLOSED LOOP

From Greg Williams (921214)

I'd be happy to put both the Models/Worlds and Blind Men papers in CLOSED
LOOP if that's what the authors want. I think they'll both probably fit in
the next issue (due out 1-15-93). Tom, Bill, and Rick, is that OK? I'll put
in a little blurb saying that they aren't exactly "threads," but worthy of
publication -- and enabling the heading toward a broader JOURNAL OF LIVING
CONTROL SYSTEMS. If we need to have a few more pages than usual, that will
be OK, I think. And Ed Ford can have extra copies made for sending out by
the authors.

Let me know what you think.

Greg

P.S. "One whole minute" ain't so great. I can reliably predict that my son
Evan will watch "Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade" for nearly two hours
any time he says he wants to watch it and he starts up the VCR. :-))
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:04:52 CST
From:         Thomas Baines <bainest@SMTPLINK.EID.ANL.GOV>
Subject:      neuroscience

    Anyone read NATURE'S MIND by Michael S. Gazzaniga?  Any comments? Any
    cautions?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:25:58 CST
From:         John Gabriel <gabriel@EID.ANL.GOV>
Subject:      Reply to Rick Marken I think.

[Gabriel 921216 14:59CST]

Rick, I think you asked what were the feedback paths for the wolves
and the baboons. I think I'v answered in two long posts one in
reply to Bill and theother to Tom Bourbon.

They are not what you are asking about, which is why I'm interested
in more general things than the simple control theory of Arm.

But there are feed back paths. They just change the Markov matrices
in the population genetics to select against excessive quarellsomeness
in wolves, and excessive carelessness in baboons.

There are some intererestin phenomena in people too. I expect
everybody on the net knows the Outward Bound program. In New Zealand
we sort of ran our own, mountaineering, motor cycle racing, and
other such things - always done on a shoestring - I could spend
three summer weeks in the mountains for less that it cost me in
room rent and board when I was a summer student at NZ's equivalent
of NBS. And the bike I raced was older than I was, and I learned
a whole lot of machinist skills I would never have had otherwise
keeping the damn thing running.

Anyhoo  The bottom line in all those things was that screwing up
was surefire guaranteed to get you hurt, and could quite easily
get you killed. And it wasn't just making an error of judgement
about a corner or a hold. Ignoring a frayed throttle cable
on the grounds that "It'll do another race" was just as serious
even if it meant not going to the cinema so that you could pay
for parts, or infinite patience coaching a chap who played
Rugby for the National Football team through his B.S. in
mathematics, so as to pay for parts to rebuild front forks
that were going unstable (see I even learned my control
theory the hard way).

So you learned the "sense of personal responsibility for your actions"
that Bill P. took exception to, the hard way. Just like the wolves.

Some place in my background there's a quote that's bound to raise
more hell on the net. Probably from some NZ ex serviceman who
had been in Crete and in prison camp after that, whom I taught
mathematics in 1948. Only the guys who've been shot at have the
right to originate these kinds of remarks, although those of us
who have led more quiet lives can quote them - "All the fun of
War, most of its' Discomfort, but only 1% of the danger." -
about mountaineering.

                John (gabriel@eid.anl.gov)

PS Now, I gotta stay off the net except for business for the Gang
of 5, or I never get any work do
done. Midnight oil for me until 2 AM I'm afraid.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: TBOURBON@UTMBEACH.BITNET (Tom Bourbon)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: citations;social;Gabriel
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:37:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"csg-l@uiucvmd.bitnet"
Original_cc:  TBOURBON

From Tom Bourbon  (921216  09:18  CST)

Re: Citations of PCT; Social literature; John Gabriel

If anyone has citations for applications of PCT, in any setting, I
want them.  Keep my address on file and send or post anything you
find.  I will be grateful.

For one specific application, Clark McPhail, one of his graduate
students, and I are looking for citations of PCT, and any of the
half-baked derivatives of PCT, in the literature on the behavior of
people in crowds, gatherings or small groups.  We also need
citations of work in which authors claim that in crowds people lose
their minds, come under control of a group mind, lose "the ability
to self-monitor," become "deindividuated," and so on.  You probably
get the picture.  Please send anything you can.

Even more specifically on the topic of citations, this is to follow
up on a post that might have been overlooked:

>Tom Bourbon  (921215  00:48)

>>[gabriel to powers 921214 11:35 CST]

>>Subject:      PCT and war

>Actually, this is a request for information.  The following remark
>occurred during your musings in "PCT and war:"

>>How do you learn to spot those small mistakes soon enough without
>>millennia of Darwin backing you up? Increasingly critical problem
>>when communication works faster, and those who have been applying
>>PCT in advertising agencies have a substantial hand in deciding
>>who gets to be president and C in C. Perhaps it was better when
>>it took three months to go from Oregon to Washington to kick butt
>>of elected rep.

>"... those who have been applying PCT in advertising agencies have
>a substantial hand in deciding who gets to be president and C in
>C."

>I collect citations of PCT and I am always looking for new areas
>in which PCT is applied.  I have not seen, perhaps because I never
>looked for them, applications of PCT in advertising.  I would like
>to add that specimen to my collection.  Can you provide a few
>specific citations and examples?


I am serious.  I will appreciate any citations you can provide on
people in advertising agencies who use PCT to sell products and to
influence presidential elections in the United States.  My
collection of applications will be incomplete without citations for
applications as important as those.  Don't keep them for yourself!

Until later,

Tom Bourbon                             e-mail:
Magnetoencephalography Laboratory       TBOURBON@UTMBEACH.BITNET
Division of Neurosurgery, E-17          TBOURBON@BEACH.UTMB.EDU
University of Texas Medical Branch      PHONE  (409) 763-6325
Galveston, TX 77550                     FAX    (409) 762-9961 USA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET"
Original_cc:  TBOURBON
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 11:31:00 CDT
From:         Tom Bourbon <TBOURBON@UTMBEACH.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Science vs Religion

From Tom Bourbon  (921211  11:28)
Oded Maler (921210 - according to "their" calendar)

* And an enlightened PCTer would see that he is a blind behaviorist/
* cognitivist ...

Of course!  And then the PCTer would realize there are no "real"
PCTers, behaviorists, cognitivists ...  not in Boss Reality.

Felicitationes,
   Tom Bourbon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU