HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Z_KURTZERML@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: echo, echo echo...
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:55:36 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"csg-l@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu"

to b.powers: a student here at SFASU would like to subscribe to the net and
 i forgot the subscribe command (the specifics) so could you please send
 that to me, thankyou.
 also i sent a message to martin about his position on the predictions of
  pct, since he hasn't responded and since i felt what i said was worth at least
  saying it was wrong/misguided/correct/whatever please give my some imput
  (that includes anyone else if your willing to respond to the babbles of a
  grunt-student feel free). the message was sent about two/three? days ago
  but here's the basic point:
      PCT can predict at a distance (i.e. into the future significantly further
      than the immediate). it is highly predictable whether you will sucessfully
      drive to the store without wrecking the car, or killing yourself or
      other people --given that is your intention. however, immediate
      predictions (actions carried out to oppose disturbances) will be known
      only if you know "other things" : certain system characteristics
      (ex. gain), and the vector sum of all disturbances at a given time
      (which could be inferred by the actions but that is circular), and
      the so-called "initial conditions" (this point can be and probably will\
      be thrown away). that is a lot of things to know, especially if you
      are not the manipulator of them all which probably isn't the case. i
      realize that some of the disturbances may be remote but 1) there effects
      aren't 2) by definition if it is a disturbance it disturbs. this, in my
      opinion, is a rewording of stable end by various means.
    thankyou from a grunt
     i.n.kurtzer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:47:05 EDT
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject: Re: MIT talk

[Martin Taylor 921009 17:45]
(Bruce Nevin 921002 13:14:03)

>The theory under discussion holds that the object selected by the vision
>system will be the least complex of the available alternatives.
>Experimental data supporting the theory will be reported.
>
>This work is based on the pioneering ideas of Solomonoff and Kolmogorov,
>and on the more recent ``minimum description length'' concept of
>Rissanen.

Interesting.  In the mid-70's I was very concerned with exactly such concepts,
and it is a good part of the reason why I harp so much on statistics as an
essential part of perception.  I also used the concept of "minimum
description length" as an argument for why Occam's razor was not only a
handy guide, but a nearly infallible rule for favouring one theory over
another, as well as for why we perceive differently using active exploration
as opposed to being presented passively with "sensory stuff."  But I didn't
know about Kolmogorov at that time, nor that it was a novel idea.  It just
seemed obvious, not really publishable.  It still does, and I'm rather
surprised that people can make seminars out of it.

There's also an article on this in the (most?) recent Science, which I don't
have with me so I can't check whether it is the same authorship (Thomas Marill).

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:27:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      MATLAB

From Greg Williams (921008)

THE STUDENT EDITION OF MATLAB (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992; $50
for either MS-DOS or Macintosh version) is currently available at many college
book stores. It is identical to Professional MATLAB (ca $700 list), a very
flexible and comprehensive numerical computation program based on matrix
algebra and calculus but including numerical integration of ordinary
differential equations, EXCEPT that the student edition's maximum matrix size
is limited to 1024 elements (32 x 32), it does NOT need a math coprocessor
(but it will use one if present), and it has no fancy graphical printing
facilities (but it does do both 2-d and 3-d screen plots -- the user can make
a low-resolution screen dump or transfer numerical data into another program,
like 1-2-3, for fancy hardcopies). Also, the student edition comes with
several control-systems-design-related programs.

I think this is a great bargain for anyone who does a lot of math. Even though
it doesn't allow real-time input/output and works with equations rather than
block diagrams, it also might be worthwhile to consider as a common program
for IBM and Mac PCTers who want to trade models back and forth. Program files
for MATLAB are in pure ASCII, and work the same in IBM and Mac versions, so
they could be sent via e-mail. The more experienced modelers could prepare
well-commented (maybe even with ASCII "character-graphics" showing the
equivalent block diagrams) program files which could be "played with" by less-
experienced modelers, who could eventually gain programming expertise in a
reasonably unintimidating environment. Due to the low price, students could
have easy access to a library of PCT models.

Perhaps Gary will be moved to get the Mac version and see what he thinks about
it. The price is right, I believe, even if it ends up being used only to tutor
the kids in algebra. The hardware requirements are as follows: IBM, 320KB RAM,
3MB hard disk space; Mac, 1 MB RAM, System 6.0 or higher, 1 800KB disk drive
and a hard disk or 2 800KB disk drives, Monaco 12-point font.

Just one more possibility.

Greg

P.S. No, Gary, I don't know the Prentice-Hall FAX number.

P.P.S. MATLAB versions are also available for VAX, Sun, Apollo; all use the
same ASCII program files. So hardly anyone on the net need be left out of
the fun if they want to join in.
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, 10 Oct 1992 09:17:55 -0600
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      No reorganization

[From Bill Powers (921010.0930)]

Greg Williams (921010) --

Since you don't seem to accept the part of HPCT that depends on the
concept of reorganization, I have to ask you how a person can learn to
control a new percept, one that this person has "never even considered
controlling," without it. The "pandemonium" organization of the HPCT
model requires a perceptual function, a comparator, and an output
function for each controlled variable. I can see how the necessary
perceptual function may already have been formed. But what is the
mechanism by which the perceptual signal becomes connected to a
comparator? What connects the reference signal to the outputs of the
appropriate higher-order systems (remember that this person has never
even considered controlling this percept before)? How does the error
signal become connected to an output function organized so that its
action will result in controlling this percept? And how does the
output function acquire that organization?

If this new control process results from hearing some information
communicated in words, how does this result in a desire to control
something associated with the meanings of this information? Why, upon
hearing that the jolly and sympathetic fellow who has kindly invested
your money for you is a con man, do you wish to do anything to this
con man? Will you continue to perceive this person as a jolly and
sympathetic fellow? If not, why not? And if not, by what hierarchical
process do you alter this perception? Have you learned some algorithm
for changing perceptions? Do you have the ability to resolder your own
neural connections at will?

Your proposals require a model entirely different from mine. How about
spelling it out?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,

Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: g-cziko@UIUC.EDU (Gary A. Cziko)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: CSGnet Growth
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:10:56 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was cziko@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU

[from Gary Cziko 921016.1800 GMT]

Since there have been several new subscribers to CSGnet over the last few
days (including Doktor Delirium from Brazil), I thought I would take a look
at the latest list (this can be gotten by anyone by sending the command REV
CSG-L (COUNTRIES as the first line of a message to
LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (please do not send this command to CSGnet).

To my surprise, I discovered that the list of subscribers is now
conveniently organized into countries.  I've appended a summary of how many
and where CSGnetters are located.  This does NOT include any individuals
who read and/or interact with CSGnet via Usenet (NetNews)--I have no way of
knowing how many or where these people are.

So as you can see, the sun never sets on CSGnet.  And we continue to grow
at a healthy rate.--Gary


*  Country        Subscribers
*  -------        -----------
*  Australia          1
*  Belgium            1
*  Brazil             1
*  Canada            13
*  Chile              1
*  France             3
*  Germany            4
*  Great Britain      3
*  Israel             2
*  Mexico             1
*  Netherlands        4
*  Poland             1
*  Singapore          1
*  Switzerland        1
*  Taiwan             1
*  USA               87
*  Yugoslavia         1
*
* Total number of users subscribed to the list:  126
* Total number of countries represented:          17
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:58:45 EDT
From:         "(Martin Taylor)" <mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA>
Subject: Re: conceiving percepts; ignoring hoaxes

[Martin Taylor 921012 15:00]
(Bill Powers 921011.1500)
> 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.
>...
> Do you want to know how people work, or do
> you just want to SEEM to know how people work?

Not being God, I'll settle for the latter.  It's all a human can aspire to.

How does a human START with a model that is correct, rather than plausible?
I'll go with the experimental method, thanks. Start with plausible models
and see which accord better with the data.  But I know I'll never have a
model that is both correct and comprehensible, let alone one that I KNOW to
be correct.

I do hope that your reorganization processes do at some time come to alter
your thinking about prediction and information.  I take it that you have
no insurance?

Happy Thanksgiving, Canada.

Martin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 07:02:10 EDT
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      entrapment

[From: Bruce Nevin (Thu 92108 06:46:08)]

This smells to me like an opportunity for the following sort of
presentation:

Presenter: As we know, A.
Audience: (Yes, that's pretty obvious.)
P: And it's pretty well accepted that B.
A: (Well, of course.)
P: Research of Frooble and Whisket, among others, shows that C.
A: (Yeah, yeah, we've known about that stuff for years.)
. . .
P: From A, B, C, . . . it follows that XYZ.
A: (Suddenly waking up.)  WHAT!! Let me go over that line of argument
   again.  Something's wrong.

Almost like the salesman who gets you saying "Yes. Yes.  Yes." to a
series of truisms, and then works in those affirmations that lead to
your making the conclusion that you want to buy his vacuum cleaner.
Except of course that your motivations are pure.  And the salesman
doesn't want you to wake up and reexamine the chain of affirmations that
led to the novel conclusion.  You, by contrast, want precisely that.

The XYZ would have to do with some consequences for method,
interpretation, value of statistical analyses, whatever seems most
germane that puts in the spotlight something that is glaringly wrong
from a PCT perspective but invisibly business-as-usual from a
conventional perspective.

	Be well,
	Bruce
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:31:48 EDT
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      they already know that

[From: Bruce Nevin (Wed 92107 13:19:46)]

(Rick Marken (921007.0800) ) --

>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?

Can you point out something they do that is incompatible with "already
knowing that"?  A couple of f'rinstances, familiar and generally
accepted methods and results whose incompatibility with CT you can
succinctly demonstrate, and which are likely to fall within the
specializations of your reviewers?  They might notice that what they are
agreeing to is not quite what you have said.  Might not get the paper
published, but the reasons for rejection might change in interesting
ways.  Incompatibility of the reasons for rejection, especially from the
same reviewers, might even provide some kind of leverage with the
editor.

The voice of inexperience . . .

	Bruce
	bn@bbn.com
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, 10 Oct 1992 08:50:20 -0600
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      No reorganization

[From Bill Powers (921010.0900)]

Greg Williams (921010) --

>I was thinking of the case where the person didn't even CONSIDER
>controlling some percepts until AFTER the facilitation. Like taking
>the con artist to court AFTER the policeman informs you that you've
>been conned (you didn't know that before) and that the con artist >is
currently in jail on another charge; if you hadn't been told >that you
were conned, you wouldn't want to control for the >perception of
taking the con artist to court, and such control >would be impossible
if the con artist hadn't been detained by the >police. I don't see
reorganization going on here, just the same >hierarchy operating
successfully with new information.
--------------------------------
Dear Mr. Williams,

The Lexington District Attorney's office wishes to inform you that
William T. Powers, also known as L. Ron Hubbard III., is presently
being held by Lexington County police on a charges of extortion, theft
of services, and fraud in connection with his promotions of
"dianetics," Rosicrucian therapy, and stock manipulation. He has also
been promoting a new scheme called "control theory," telling old
people that using this theory they can extend their lives and increase
their income, and accepting large "donations" from them. In support of
this con game, he and a woman posing as his wife have persuaded
several small publishers to provide books at very low cost, which they
give to these old people as proof of legitimacy (most of the material
in these books has been translated from Russian into English with his
name attached as author). We understand that he has been distributing
books published by you as part of this scheme, using your name as a
reference. If you wish to press charges, please contact this office
immediately.
--------------------------------
You, upon receiving this new information, write back:
---------------------------------
Dear Sirs,

Thank you for this information. I have taken it into account and will
modify my activities accordingly. Fortunately, I can make the
necessary changes calmly and without any serious upsets. Please convey
my best regards to Mr. Powers. I hope the weather is pleasant in
Lexington.
---------------------------------

Note relayed from W. T. Powers, 62381034:
I don't see reorganization going on here, just the same hierarchy
operating successfully with new information. Please send $10,000.

More later.

Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:11:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Significance & importance

From Greg Williams (921008 - 2)

>Bill Powers (921008)

>At no
>point, however, did the environment have any effect on the most
>fundamental critical variable of all: accuracy of replication.
>Controlling that is the point of the whole shebang.

But you admit that the environment can have great effect on what you consider
"surface" phenomena. It appears that you explicitly agree with me that both
radical organismism and radical environmentalism are wrong, because the (to
you) "significant" variables don't depend on the environment and the (to you)
"insignificant" variables do depend on the environment. So, we end up with
what I've referred to as organismic/environmental "co-determination" of (some)
variables. That's all I've been lobbying for. Of course, you seem to believe
that organismism in some sense is vindicated if the (to you) "significant"
variables do not depend on the environment. I still think they do, in
important ways, but I don't need them to for what I've been calling "co-
determination." "Critical variable organismism" -- a limited version of
organismism -- is, I think, compatible with the kind of "co-determination"
I've been arguing for. Your admitting "co-determination" of (to you)
"insignificant" variables is enough for me right now. Even with "critical
variable organismism" (or maybe it should be "evolutionism"?), the result is
an explicit step away from radical organismism.

This leads to the need to consider why anyone would or would not decide to be
interested in having explanations of or, more generally, in understanding and
dealing with, 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.

The resulting data might help to convince some PCTers that the slogan "No one
can control you" -- meaning that no one make you want what you don't want --
merits a "Big deal! I can still have plenty of problems -- and plenty of
benefits -- due in part to others controlling their OWN perceptions which
depend on what I do. And those problems/benefits aren't insignificant TO ME!"

Best,

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 14:55:15 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:55:15 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Nonlinear models; modeling

[From Rick Marken (921012.0300)]

Bill Powers (921012.1400) --

>Rick, you're giving Martin a pretty hard time for (I think) the wrong
>reason.

Me? Giving a hard time? Wrong reason!!

>Martin suggested trying logarithmic
>perceptual functions, which isn't a bad idea, considering Weber and
>Fechner, and Stevens.

I was not objecting to the log function idea. I'm giving Martin a hard
time because a) it's fun and b) because he seemed to suggest that one
could tell from the nature of the residual variance itself something
about the nature of the required non-linearities in the perceptual
function. My "cheerfully ignorant" impression was that Martin's suggestion
was based on the way this is done in conventional statistical research
(which assumes y = f(x1,x2,...xn)) and accounts for the residual error
variance by adding in the non-linear predictors, x^2, x^3, etc. And you
can tell from the residuals what terms might be best to include in the
regression. I don't think you can look at the residuals and tell much
about how to change the control model; but, as I said, I'd be happy to
find out how it can be done. I just didn't follow Martin's description.
So I am not objecting to any particular proposals about how to change
the model to improve prediciton. I am questioning the ability to go from
an analysis of the residuals (based on an input-output model of the
system) to an understanding of what it is about the system model that
should be changed. I'm not saying it can't be done; I'm just asking how.
I am trying to encourage an approach to research based on modelling rather
than curve fitting. If Martin can show how an analysis of residuals such
as he suggests can be used to make coherent improvements to a closed loop
behavioral model, then I think that would be a nice contribution to PCT
methodology.

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:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:56:20 EDT
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject:      Re: Why 99%?

[Martin Taylor 921009 17:50] (trying a quick backlog clearing operation)
(Tom Bourbon 921002 -- 10:50)

>>Martin Taylor 920929 16:00
>
>>My presumption is that you get the 99% prediction because the subsystems
>>(perhaps ECSs) that are involved in the task are those that support
>>very many different kinds of behavior, and so are not readily disturbed
>>by contextual differences.
>
>What do you mean by "contextual differences?"  I believe your presumption
>is wrong, but I am not certain what you are saying.  By "contextual
>differences" do you mean that target positions follow different random
>paths on every trial and the cursor is disturbed by a different random
>function on every trial?

No, not at all.  I mean that a pianist uses the same muscle tension control
systems to create a legato run as to pick up a piece of bread or to wave to
a friend.  But the higher-level system that generates (eventually) the
reference level changes that direct the muscel tension control systems can
be affected by the pianist's hearing a flute played in the next apartment.
That could disrupt the legato run.  The lower-level systems, as they support
many widely different kinds of perceptual control at higher levels, are not
very susceptible to contextual influences, whereas the higher level ones,
being more specific, can be more disturbed.

When you model the pianist, you will probably get very good prediction for
the low-level controls, but when the flute disrupts the legato run, your
simulation will not model it.  You could build in that source of disturbance,
but the odds are that you wouldn't.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:05:51 EDT
From:         Michael Hillwig <MLH4125@SRU.BITNET>
Subject:      SIG FILE
Comments: To: Star Trek Fan Club List <STREK-L@PCCVM.BITNET>,
              "Residence Hall Association Discussion List"
              <RHA-L@TAMVM1.BITNET>,
              "Residence Halls: Something More than a place to Sl"
              <DORMS-L@TECMTYVM.BITNET>,
              NCC-L@TAMVM1.BITNET, LSTSRV-L@UGA.BITNET

I'm sorry if anyone gets this post in more than one place; I'm sending
it to several discussion lists.

I'm doing a program on electronic mail at an upcoming conference, and
I'm looking for a variety of .sig (signature) files.  If you have one
to share, please e-mail it to me *privately* at MLH4125@SRU.BITNET.

Please include SIG FILE as your subject heading.

Thanks!!!

Michael Hillwig
Resident Advisor              "Life is good even though people are
Slippery Rock University       generally stupid."
MLH4125@SRU.BITNET            -Russell D Barefoot
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU