HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 11:33:56 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:33:56 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Rush to knowledge

[From Rick Marken (921012.1130)]

Martin Taylor (921010 15:40) --

I still have absolutely no idea what you expect to find by analyzing
"residual variance" or why you expect to find it. How about actually
writing some equations or, better, some model code so that I can
understand how your proposal relates to a functional control model. I
still believe that the statistical analysis you are so earnestly
pursuing is worthless; but I am willing to be convinced otherwise, if
you want to try. But I certainly don't mind if you want to have a good
time doing these kinds of analyses -- they are familiar and comfortable
for you. But sometimes, in order to understand new things, you have to
try what is not familiar and comfortable. It's called reorganization.
It happens when current control systems are not working. Your "data
analysis" systems seems to be working just fine so, mazel tov.

Martin also said to me:

>Well, I want to know how people work, even if you don't.  It isn't enough for
>me to accept that behaviour is controlled perception.  I want to know where
>the signals go (functionally), and what happens if you block this of that
>path, how to deal with people suffering from stroke, why we have focussed
>attention and what its limitations are, whether we use internal feedback
>for short-term memory, and all sorts of questions like that.

In support of Martin's comments, Greg said:

>Well said and worth repeating. Sadly, I predict no reorganization
>resulting from these comments. I hope my prediction is wrong.

Bill Powers (921011.1500) replied to Martin (and Greg):

>Wanting this isn't sufficient to make it possible. We have 50 years of
>groundwork to lay before any believable answers to such questions can be
>found.

>Before you can ask where signals go and what happens if you block this or that
> path, you have to have a model that is correct. Not just plausible, correct.
> Throwing together a bunch of suppositions and then using them to make
> deductions is a total waste of time. Do you want to know how people work,
> or do you just want to SEEM to know how people work?

To which I can only add an enthusiastic "here, here". PCT can't be much fun
for people who already know what they want to find out about how people
work. It's no fun because people don't work that way.

Have a nice week

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
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.5.6 6/30/89)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:04:41 MET
From:         "(Maler)" <maler@IMAG.FR>
Subject:      Interaction without theory
              prevention ..." (Oct  9, 11:57)

[From: Oded Maler 921012]
*
* [From Bill Powers (921009.0800)]
*
* ------------------------------------------------------------------
* Control theory fits the world as it is, and people the way they are.
* But an understanding of control theory leads to assigning causality
* differently, and as a result will change the way people do things and
* the reasons for which they do them.

Humans (and surely animals) managed to achieve their goals in the
physical world long before Newton. They could interactact with
gravity and other forces (and as you would say, reorganize and let
their pereceptions meet their references) without having a theory
for those complex phenomena. Of course, after having the theory
they could build tools for influencing the world to a much greater
extent.

Now moving to interactions with the living and later the mindfull
world: Some people (shepards, politicians, dictators, salesmen, teachers)
may succeed in causing individuals and crowds to do certain things
because the complex control loop of the influencer is such that
it somehow fits some invariant properties of those who are influenced,
in the same way that the sensory-motor control loops fits the
physical world. It need not be done conciously, nor with a theory
of how people are organized. It is "knowing to" and not "knowing
why". You may claim that having a theory like PCT will enable more
complex interactions in the same way that physical sciences led us
to progress from walking to flying.

--Oded

--
===============================================================
Oded Maler, LGI-IMAG (Campus), B.P. 53x, 38041 Grenoble, France
Phone:  76635846  Fax: 76446675   e-mail: maler@vercors.imag.fr
===============================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:36:13 EDT
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject: Re: Ounce of prevention (hidden bombs)

[Martin Taylor 921009 17:15]
(Bill Powers 921009 0800)

>Yep, too bad. You can't control what you're not controlling for.
>That's how it works. If you don't learn from experience you're going
>to get conned over and over. If you had a bad education it's going to
>stay bad until you decide to continue it. If your parents let you do
>anything you wanted, you're going to want a lot a weird things unless
>you learn from experience that this doesn't get you what you want.

More technically, but I think saying the same thing, you are talking about
the bomb in the hierarchy that I tried to introduce a few weeks ago.  In
other words the "school of hard knocks" is not a bad school if you expect
to live in an environment of hard knocks.  If you can guarantee living where
slaves wait on your every desire, you may be able to get the weird things
you want whenever you want them.  But most of us can't do that.  If we don't
learn what gets us what we want in a variable world, we won't get it when
we are out in that world, because we haven't reorganized in such a way
that our control loops have high negative gain through many parallel optional
feedback paths (micro-loops) through the world.

The feedback loop from the output of a high-level ECS back to its perceptual
signal goes through the real world (or through imagination) by way of many
parallel paths I call micro-loops.  Even when the overall feedback gain is
nicely negative, it is by no means guaranteed that each of the micro-loops
also would provide negative feedback on its own.  When the real world blocks
the error-correcting action of micro-loops that are normally useful or are
anticipated to be useful, then it can happen that the overall feedback gain
is reduced and can even go positive.  The error "blows up" because the person
does something that not only doesn't get what he or she wants, but actually
gets something distinctly unwanted.  Such bombs can lie hidden for a long
time in a seldom disturbed hierarchy.  When I introduced the bomb concept, I
speculated that the ability of bombs to stay hidden in "coddled" nets might
account for why so many mass murderers are characterized as Quiet, Nice Kids
Who Never Were Any Trouble To Their Parents. Losing one's temper and doing
something maladaptive as a consequence of frustration reveals the bomb.
Wanting "a lot of weird things ... [that don't] ... get you what you want"
is the content of the bomb.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 09:53:09 EDT
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      significance of the insignificant

[From: Bruce Nevin (Fri 92109 09:30:09)]

(Greg Williams (921008 - 2) ) --

>        . . . how someone's (to Bill) "insignificant" variables can be
>influenced by that person's environment (both living and non-living parts).
>Maybe Clark McPhail could help begin to answer this question. Or maybe victims
>of con artists could help. Or maybe welfare mothers. Or TV watchers. Or drug
>addicts. Or parents. Or children. Or teachers. Or students. Or counselors. Or
>prisoners. Or most anyone engaged in and/or studying social interactions.

I have only delved a bit into the Collected Writings of Milton Erikson,
but enough to suggest to me that you will find a lot of grist for this
mill there.

One anecdote about Erikson:  He's giving a lecture.  At a certain point
two people, from opposite sides of the auditorium rise, walk up on the
stage, and sit down in chairs near the podium.  When asked why they did
so, they are somewhat puzzled, and say it just seemed like the right
thing to do.  He then explains that he communicated with them
individually during the course of the lecture delivered to the whole
audience.  Catching the eye of this one while saying a word or phrase
that had a general meaning for the audience, but a specific one for the
person.  Gesturing in a way that had general meaning for the audience
but that indicated what was desired to the individual on that side.
Embedding suggestions covertly within the flow of communications that had
different overt purposes.  In this he was making use of what he called
"everyday trance," a state that is not limited to people listening to
lectures.  This demonstration then having its purpose to exemplify
points made in the lecture, he thanked his still somewhat bemused
assistants for their help, in a way that they felt pleased and not
exploited, and concluded the lecture.

The collected papers are in four volumes, edited by a student of his
named Rossi.

I will not defend Erikson or his work.  He speaks quite well for
himself.  But you do have to read the material.  Many of his approaches
seem to me to rest on creative use of ambiguity, rather than on drawing
attention to lower levels of perception (e.g. the stereotype Bill
mentioned of the voice droning on about heavy eyelids), but that may
have the same effect (e.g. his handshake technique).

	Bruce
	bn@bbn.com
From: bill@BIOME.BIO.NS.CA ((Bill Silvert))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: oops. behavior of perception paper
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:37:10 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

>[From Rick Marken (921016.0900)]
>
>Sorry about dumping the big "Behavior of perception" paper onto the
>net. I thought I was replying personally to Isaac, who asked for a
>copy. Boy was I surprised when I got an message back from the listserver
>acknowledging a post. Sorry folks (except those of you who who will enjoy
>reading it).
>
>But since I sent it anyway, here is the end part, which was cut off
>during a kermit transmission of the file. It's not too long.

The complete paper (both parts) is availabe from the biome server.
--
Bill Silvert at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography
P. O. Box 1006, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CANADA B2Y 4A2
InterNet Address: bill@biome.bio.ns.ca
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:06:14 EDT
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject: Re: Misc subjects

(Martin Taylor 921009 1800]
(Bill Powers 921002.0600)

On The Test

>RE: applying disturbances (stuck phonograph record division):
....

>The disturber should NOT control for a visible change in the variable
>being disturbed. That simply creates conflict. What the disturber
>should do (where possible) is alter some OTHER variable that is
>loosely coupled to the putative controlled variable. This will elicit
>an opposing change in the controller's actions even if the controlled
>variable doesn't visibly change. In low-gain situations (like the coin
>game) this doesn't matter so much. But when the control system
>involved is a very good one, insistence on seeing the controlled
>variable actually change will result in applying very large forces to
>the controlled variable, with a probable change in what variables the
>controller is controlling. The Test is most accurate when the
>controlled variable doesn't change at all (that you can see).

I wouldn't have thought it made any difference whether the observer affected
the supposed controlled CEV directly or through a "loosely coupled variable."
And I wouldn't have thought that actually seeing a visible effect of the
disturbance on the test CEV was important.  If you do, the subject probably
isn't controlling it with any substantial gain.  What the observer should
observe is a failure of the test CEV to change as much as it should have
been expected to do, given the magnitude of the applied disturbance.  If
the observer wants to discover the limits of the subject's control, then
what you talk about will presumably come to pass--large forces and a change
in the subject's behaviour (if not organization).

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:30:32 EDT
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject: Re: Percepts; reorganization; competing behaviors

[Martin Taylor 921008 20:15]
(Bill Powers 921006.1530)

I'm delayed in this response, and I think that I may not be able to respond
much over the next 3 or 4 weeks, first because of other pressures and then
because I'll be away.  I owe Rick a response on statistics based on a private
interchange he suggested be continued publicly, and I hope I'll get to that.
But here's a little something, anyway.

>RE: competing behaviors
>
>>When one of the mutually competing behaviours acts so as to provide
>>a percept that satisfies the higher-level ECS's reference signal
>>(taking the car gets me closer to my destination), the reference
>>signals for the other would-be competitors are reduced.
>
>What reduces them? I still don't see how you can be riding a bicycle
>and driving a car at the same time.

If the reference for "see myself as riding a bike" is a result of the
output from the ECS that is controlling for "see myself arriving at the
destination," then nearing the destination will reduce that reference.
I suspect, however, that since we are working above the category level,
there are threshold effects as well.  Be that as it may, when I am at the
destination, there is no error in not seeing myself taking the bike.
>
>>Then the higher-level reference is not being satisfied, and as you
>>say, the output of the "taking bike" system increases, to the point
>>where it overtakes the "taking car" system and inhibits it.
>
>Where are these outputs acting, outside the system? What kind of
>outputs are they? Come on, Martin, you're waving your arms.

Well, I can't do that and type at the same time, can I?

In the scenario I painted, the output for taking the car was indeed acting.
It was acting on the CEV that we call driving the car.  But the world made
that CEV immovable (the car didn't work, so it, too, was immovable).  The
output of taking the bike was not capable of causing overt actions in the
real world so long as it needed ECSs at lower levels that were acting on behalf
of the "taking car" ECS.   But when its output became large enough to cause
a switch (which I think must occur at the category level and above, there
being no intermediate possible reference levels between categories), then
those lower ECSs would cease supporting "taking car" and start responding to
reference levels that ultimately derived from "taking bike."  This doesn't
imply internal inhibition.  It's just that the relevant CEVs do not admit
to simultaneous control in the real world, because in the real world their
control requires some lower-level CEVs to be controlled to more than level
at the same time, which can't happen.

I don't perceive arm-waving, and I'm certainly not controlling for perceiving
it.  The linkages and interactions seem quite clear an unobjectionable to me,
and I'm not quite sure what it is you are having difficulty with.

I do have to admit that I have not built a simulation.

Martin
From: POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU (William T. Powers)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Modeling reorganization
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:58:58 GMT
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

[From Bill Powers (921016.0930)]

Oded Maler (921016) --

I like it. We develop a verbal means of protecting ourselves from
criticism or resistance in bumping our way among people, and use it
automatically when we bump into anything, or cause any problem. I've
sometimes thought that "pardon me" is used as another way of saying
"get out of my way."

What kind of experiment could you do to test your proposal that the
"sorry" loop is lower in the hierarchy than the conscious one?

Any more proposals out there? How about the S-R explanation?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Williams (921016) --

>... the criteria for starting reorganization due to errors in
>(some? all?) innate critical variables are subject to alteration by
>reorganization triggered by sufficient error in acquired (within a
>single lifetime) reference levels -- which can be thought of as
>acquired critical variables.

Do I understand this correctly? You appear to be saying that a learned
system can alter not just the states of the organism that I call
critical variables (through indirect effects of its actions), but the
TARGET VALUES (criteria) toward which those critical variables are
controlled and that define zero critical error. So unless you're
junking my proposed reorganizing system, you're adding lines in the
diagram that come from the output of a learned reorganizing system and
go to the reference inputs of my proposed system. Is that what you
mean?

I know you're trying to get the house finished and do all the other
things that would keep three ordinary people busy. When things settle
down, perhaps you can get more specific about the model you're
proposing. I don't really want to go on with this until there's a
model to test. What you consider to be data depends on the model
you're using.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,

Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 07:55:09 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:55:09 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      The behavior of perception

[From Rick Marken (921007.0800)]

I'm very busy here at work so I can just barely keep up with the mail.
But I just wanted to give a quick news bulletin -- which I might be able
to follow up on at lunch time. The "Hierarchical behavior of perception"
paper was rejected by "Theory & Psychology". The two reviews were the
nicest I have ever received. Basically, both said it was a good paper
but "we already know that" (that behavior is controlled perception).
I love it! So why are they still acting like they don't, I wonder?

Details at eleven -- really.

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:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:11:19 EDT
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      blindsight article in _The Sciences_

[From: Bruce Nevin (Wed 92107 14:00:02)]

While waiting for some administrivia, just read the article "Unconscious
vision: the strange phenomenon of blindsight" by Lawrence Weiskrantz (of
Oxford) with Sr. Editor Karen Fitzgerald, in _The Sciences_,
September/October 1992 (23-28).  This suggests to me that control
systems in the midbrain and hindbrain (not exclusively for visual
perception) operate in parallel with those in the cortex, but without
conscious awareness.

Descriptions of "guessing" responses to stimuli to which systems in the
cortex (but not those in other systems) are blind are remarkably similar
to descriptions of responses in tests for socalled psychic perception.
This suggests to me a possible explanation for at least some of these
experience, namely, that there may be perceptions controlled in the
midbrain and hindbrain that are not controlled in the cortex.

In any case, the article (avowedly) bears squarely on the question of
the seat(s) of consciousness in the brain, and summarizes interesting
results and interesting questions, for which I recommend it.

	Bruce
	bn@bbn.com
From: Z_KURTZERML@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: family man
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:07:38 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"csg-l@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu"

to g. cziko: didn't mean to override you if that was your impression, b.powers
 helped me out last time that's all.
 thankyou
to w.t.bourbon: yes it is ISAAC; am anxious to recieve your papers; see you
 oct. 30
 thankyou
to g.williams: i appriciate the response.
 thankyou
to r."the player" marken: in case you forgot, i WOULD like a copy of the
 recently rejected paper.
 thankyou
to d.delprato: reading your article am i to understand that skinner felt that
 psychology could be reduced to chemistry,physics,etc. but that it was not
 necessary to explain behavior (superfluous?) ?

 silly snorts from a garden-variety grunt

  i.n.kurtzer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"csg-l@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:14:21 -0500
From:         Z_KURTZERML@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU
Subject:      assorted rubbage

this is ISAAC again and i have been occupied for the past week and had
to delete the whole lot. next time i'll have the time to separate the
wheat from the chaff.
       ASSORTED RUBBAGE
1. to whoever is sending out the next closed loop, i have moved since

   this summer. my new address is  isaac kurtzer    p.o.box 4509 SFASU
                                         Nacogdoches,TX  75962
      thankyou
2. to whoever can give me a SUCCINCT answer/definition, what in the
   johnjacobjingleheimerschmitt is a ECS ?!
      thankyou
3. to that person who has posted that he/she? was writing a article on
   skinnerian behaviorism
   a) is there a draft ready, preprint is just fine, that you could send
      me. i have a paper to write for tech. writing [ not my spartan
      paper ] and am basically writing a primer.
   b) could you write a short list (on the net) of books represntative
      of skinner's beliefs
   c) would you mind filling out a short interview for my primary source
   d) please reply,at least to tell me no
       thankyou
4. to C. McPhail, i figured you might be interested in knowing that i'll

   be using your ...maddening crowd and other works as a guide and
   reference for my FAT term paper on sparta/pct
5. to Gary "the player" Mobley, are you hooked on here. a no-reply i'll
   assume as no
      thankyou
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"csg-l@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:03:57 -0500
From:         Z_KURTZERML@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU
Subject:      nada

to dennis delprato: i have recieved your paper
to w.t. bourbon: since michelle's proposal is next friday, please bring the
 "to control or to be controlled" paper

  i.n.kurtzer