HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: The American University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:31:39 EDT
From:         eric harnden <HARNDEN@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Turing

(eric harnden: 920915.1230)

ok, i think i'm coming a little closer, here. mr marken's post on the
turing test contained a thumbnail of the pct perspective which makes it
a little easier for me to understand why his insistence that ai should
not focus on modeling behavioral outputs has been so strongly stated,
and am finding myself more in agreement. i think that part of my
resistance to this point has been a degree of confusion over the
importance of the specific terminology. frankly, i don't think it matters
where one puts the 'behavior' label. my own approach has always been
a cybernetic one, and the shifting of a label doesn't change any of my
(mental or experimental) model structures. i also think that such a
(perhaps misplaced?) emphasis on nomenclature may be partly responsible
for an earlier interaction between mr marken and ms sibun. given the
interaction between entity and environment as the basis for discussion,
the question of the locus of mind is largely philosophical. as i told
ms sibun in a private memo, i found some of the material that she
presented interesting in as far it related to ideas about mind that i have
picked up from bateson. but so what? or so what about objections to those
views? i model the mechanism, not the philosophy.
one way in which i am now more confused, however... mr marken said something
about the organism not being the cause of behavior. that behavior is
'caused' by environmental disturbance of the organism's perceptions. on the
strictly structural level i'm willing to accept this, given the local
definition of behavior. but, since the purpose of behavior is adjustment of
perceptions toward reference values, then that which is caused by environmental
disturbance must be the organism's actions... which is precisely the
'normal' definition of behavior. is there a contradiction here? sorry if
the answer to this question is made glaringly clear by closer reading
of some part of BCP which i have skimmed/forgotten. also, btw, note that
this question falls in the category just discussed. i don't really see how
the distinction affects the model.

-----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >-----------
Eric Harnden (Ronin)
<HARNDEN@AUVM.BITNET> or <HARNDEN@AMERICAN.EDU>
The American University Physics Dept.
4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058
(202) 885-2748
---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >-------------------
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:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:48:01 -0600
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Child-rearing magic

[From Bill Powers (920908.2000)]

Thomas Baines (920908) --

You have some pretty attentive ears out here. Your description of
organism-raising could provide some answers to the general problem of
how independent autonomous systems can get along together, and how to
"raise" children of any species by some means that doesn't end up
teaching them violence and crippling their self-starters.

On the other hand, a skeptic could need some convincing that this is a
method that others might want to use. First off, I've never heard
anyone describe a method of child-rearing they worked out and used and
conclude by telling us that the kids turned out terrible as a result
of the method. The problem here is that the parent naturally uses his
or her own reference levels in judging the result. If the children
behave in a way consistent with those reference levels, the parent
will point to them as proof that the method works. I expect that the
Ayatollah Khoumeni's Dad was quite proud of the job of child-rearing
he did. So to judge the worth of any method of raising children (or
pets), one has to get outside of the framework of the parent doing the
raising. That's where a theoretical framework can help.

Your description leaves itself open to several interpretations,
depending on what the reader thinks is right and proper. Many people
think they know what children and dogs "pay attention to:" pain,
hunger, thirst, parental (or masterly) rejection, and loss of freedom.
So they might interpret this phrase a little differently from the way
you meant it (I presume):

>This requires figuring out what the kid (or dog) pays attention to,
>then using that as the channel through which to impart knowledge &
>stimulate curiosity.

Some people would mean by that, "Find out what they value, and then
take it away from them until they cave in." Considering your interest
in PCT, I rather doubt that this is what you meant, but you see the
problem.

I think everyone would like to hear the details, for comparison with
PCT principles and probably for more practical reasons than that. How,
for example, do you do the housebreaking? How about some examples of
"rudiments of ... responsibility for personal actions" and how you
actually teach them?

The one that really gets me is

>Any insistence on my part to force the kid or pup to see things my
way >have been pretty fruitless.  I have to see things their way, then
>establish why their viewpoint is in error.

As a father of teenagers I was terrible at trying to figure out (a)
what mistake they were making, and (b) expressing it in a coherent way
that they might understand. How the hell did you do it, aside from
using your natural genius? I'll bet a lot of people would like to
know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,


Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:31:09 -0500
From:         "Gary A. Cziko" <g-cziko@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Blind Men and Scientific Progress

[from Gary Cziko 920908]

Rick Marken (920908.1030) in response to Greg Williams (920906 - 2) says:

>I think my "Blind men" paper fills that bill. It says that psychologists are
>right in the sense that control DOES look like response to stimulation, adapt-
>ation to constraint (reinforcement) and output generation. But these appear-
>ances, taken at face value, give a misleading impression of how behavior works.
>At no point in the paper do I say that anyone is "wrong" -- just that they have
>missed one little thing: the fact that all these appearances are aspects of
>the phenomenon of control. The paper also connects current approaches to
>psychology with the PCT approach. Is this consistent with your ideology?
>I hope so.

I started thinking about the Blind Men paper again while reading the
philosopher of science Imre Lakatos.  He makes the case that science
progresses when new theories account for everything that the old theories
account for plus account for some things they don't account for.  Of
course, this is not a new idea (although perhaps some of the nuances
Lakatos slips in are new).

So, Rick, if you still have problems getting this wonderful paper
published, maybe you should add this angle to it as well, i.e., a little
history of science like how Newton showed that Galileo and Kepler were
partly blind and how Einstein showed that Newton was partly blind, etc.  In
each case, a more encompassing theory was proposed that pulled together
what first appeared to be separate, unrelated phenomena (e.g., Galileo's
terrestrial mechanics and Kepler's planetary mechanics).  This is exactly
what your Blind Men paper does as well.

What is particularly intriguing to think about, however, is how in 100
years or so PCTers will be considered partly blind!  I wonder what the next
step will be after PCT to pull what appear to be disparate, unrelated
phenomena together.--Gary


------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary A. Cziko                    Telephone: (217) 333-8527
Educational Psychology           FAX: (217) 333-5847
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
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 14:15:33 CDT
From:         URROBERT@ECNUXA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Misc as listed:congratulations
              Aug

[From Dick Robertson - 9/05/92]
Hi Dag, congratulations to you and Christine on your first customer.  I just
read your post of 0830.  It is great stuff.  I want to use it in a History of
psychology class I'm teaching, in which I start with Kuhn and end with HPCT.
Also, I'll soon be sending you the Plooij paper that I promised.
best, Dick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 12:06:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      No (even) small sacrifice

From Greg Williams (920905)

>Rick Marken (920904.1430)

>I don't want to see PCT sacrificed on the alter of ideology either! Help.
>Stop me before I sacrifice again! Tell me what I am doing that's
>wrong. How can I stop?

Just keep thinking about what you are saying. Eventually it will dawn on you
that the PCT model explicitly says that one's history (genetic and
environmental) plays an important role in determining what one's current
control structure is. (PCT doesn't say that one's past environment SOLELY
resulted in one's current reference levels, but that it CONJOINTLY -- with
one's control structure history -- determines the current reference levels.)

I think you agree with this in practice, but perhaps not in principle:

>Rick Marken (920904.2030)

>When you continually try to get your kid to behave a particular way (assuming
>that the kid does not want to behave that way for whatever reason) you will
>get a kid who is constantly reorganizing in an effort to defeat the
>goals of your controlling. I watched this happen over a 2 decade period
>with my beloved brother; 20 years of efforts by well-intentioned
>parents to turn my non school loving brother into an intellectual
>managed to produce a man who can barely read.

Thaaaaaat's historical (co-)determination of current control structures,
folks!!! Stay tuned for a commercial from Behavior Mod, Inc., the folks with
the motto: Give us your dumb, your weak, your tired... they're EASY to
control! [PCT says why.]

>They will align them fine on their own. Cut 'em some slack.

Controlling for not altering variables associated with others is a form of
control, isn't it? Such deliberate non-controlling-others control, I think,
can also result in screwed-up persons, sometimes. Not because of conflicts
within the non-controlled persons, but because their reference signals
(unmodified by history of interactions with non-controllers) don't mesh with
the desires of people around them (not just the non-controllers). Example:
rich spoiled brats. Perhaps -- accepting the PCT idea that reorganization
stops (with a new control structure) when the problem which started the
reorganization is solved (meaning that one's environment is influential in
"choosing" among possible new control structures proposed "randomly" (which
might mean "truly" randomly or pseudorandomly) by the mechanisms within an
individual -- there is an optimal level of "attempting to control others" with
respect to their meshing with others' control structures? Perhaps; I suppose
it depends strongly on the particulars of a given situation through time.

So keep it up, Rick, and together we can forge a broader ideology based on PCT
science. History AND physiology....

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:12:06 -0500
From:         "Gary A. Cziko" <g-cziko@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Barry Richard and STELLA

[from Gary Cziko 92091.1310]

Eric Harnden (920911)

>i believe it's actually barry richmond.

You're right, it's Barry Richmond (and NOT Barry Richard) who is the man
behind STELLA.  It is also NOT George Richardson (whom Bill Powers
mentioned in his last note.

Sorry.--Gary
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary A. Cziko                    Telephone: (217) 333-8527
Educational Psychology           FAX: (217) 333-5847
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
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:41:53 CDT
Reply-To:     mcnamara@mgi.com
From:         mcnamara@VIXVAX.MGI.COM
Subject:      RE: Sciences and Ideologies - I

Curt McNamara (920904.1730 CDT)

> [From Rick Marken (920904.1430)]
>
> My only ideology
> (that I know of) is that I believe (based on my understanding of the nature of
> control) that controlling is not a very good way for controllers to interact,
> my own behavior notwithstanding. (As I always say to my kids, "do as I say,
> not as I do; better yet, do as your mother says; even better yet, do what
> you want").
>

	Really?  Is this how you raised your kids?  No time-outs,
loss of privelieges, etc.?  Or was there something more?
	Seriously, I would very much appreciate those of you who have
raised/are raising children would pass on your tips on "aligning thier
control structures" with those of civilization.
	BTW it appears to me that some CSG-L folks don't believe in
manipulation because they think everyone's control structures are
perfectly aligned with their highest principles.  In fact, I would
guess that none of us are actually organized this well.  The
non-alignment is what allows manipulation to occur.

						Curt

****************************************************************************
Curt McNamara	(mcnamara@mgi.com)	|"Mistakes are part of the dues
Mgmt. Graphics, Inc.			|one pays for a full life."
1401 E. 79th St.			|	Sophia Loren
Mpls., MN    55425			|
****************************************************************************
From: sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM (Penni Sibun)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Re: Imagination; turing test
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:53:45 GMT
Reply-To: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
              14 Sep 1992 15:16:42 -0700
              <92Sep14.151831pdt.11592@alpha.xerox.com>

(ps 920914.2100)

   [From Bill Powers (920914.1530)]

   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   In your reply to Rick you say

   >no.  the sex test looks at a person and guesses whether they are
   >female or male.  period.  the sex test doesn't care about what's
   >inside.  it only has access to what you consider ``superficial''
   >things.

   I guess that as usual big disagreements rest on little words, in this
   case "are." When you say you're trying to guess whether they "are"
   male or female, the normal interpretation would be that you're trying
   to guess what they REALLY are, not just how they look. In other words,
   you can only tell whether your guess is "right" by (blush) peeking.

i've been trying to establish that ``what they REALLY are'' has two
answers, and that these answers are distinct (sex-by-chromosomes
doesn't always match sex-by-judgement).  i've further insinuated that
the answer that is used 99.99% of the time is the one by judgement.
and i've left the conclusion to be drawn that the judgement answer is
in fact the really real one (unless you're a doctor or scientist and
have some reason to muck about in somebody's chromosomes).

so the ambiguity you perceive is deliberate.  i'm hoping that rather
than thinking i've been sloppy, y'all will think i'm making a point.

cheers.

				--penni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:27:42 EDT
From:         Eileen Prince <eprince@DS5000.DAC.NORTHEASTERN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: One or two texts, Progress report

I'd be most interested in the demo package.  My snail mail address
is:

Eileen Prince
English Language Center
Northeastern University
206BY
Boston, MA  02115

Fax:  617-437-8929

Plain old phone:  617-437-3925


Thank you for your prompt response to my query.

Best,

Eileen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:00:00 GMT
From:         Dag Forssell <0004742580@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Phenomenon, Demo.

[From Dag Forssell (20911)]

Tom Baines, Penni Sibun, Ray Jackson and Uwe Schnepf:

Information packet never did get mailed last weekend. I dealt this past week
with some other (for me larger) error signals. Your packet IS being mailed
tomorrow, Saturday. Includes literature references. Hope you like it.

Dag
From: psy_delprato@EMUNIX.EMICH.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: RE: one or two texts
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:32:40 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.

[From: Dennis Delprato (920913)]

Eileen Prince asked for two recommended books.  I'll recommend
one, J. R. Kantor's *Psychological Linguistics*, 1977, Principia
Press.  You will not find PCT explicitly presented here.  What
you will find is a naturalistic re-examination of linguistics
free from environmentalistic and mentalistic approaches that
underlie all alternatives to how PCT handles linguistic acts.
Unless one has rather thoroughly "digested" system theory and
cybernetics (and bracketed the fluff from both), one will likely
find Kantor's linguistics a valuable lead into detailed PCT
handling of linguistic acts.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:56:59 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Child-rearing magic

The only really magical trick that Cindy & I discovered for child-rearing
was one to stop the chorus of `me-firsts' whenever goodies are distributed.
The rule was that whoever said `me-first' first was last.  This seemed to
work very effectively, without provoking any resentment on the part of the
control-/manipul- ees.  Why, I don't know.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au\
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, 6 Sep 1992 18:20:15 -0600
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Just a word

[From Bill Powers (920906.1830)]

Rick Marken (920906) --

Rick, I think Hank was trying to say that the Flat Earth Society is a
deliberate put-on; that they support "wrong" ideas as a matter of
principle. Is that right, Hank?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Ford (920906) --

I guess I knew that you wouldn't do anything like an automaton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,


Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 18:41:55 PDT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:41:55 PDT
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Morals and Malfunctions

[From Rick Marken (920912.1830)]

Well, of course. The reason the drug warriors are the problem
is because they must push against another control system in order
to control the variable they want to control. The victim
(the druggie) could (and was until the drug warrior came
along) control the variable s/he is controlling without
creating conflict in another control system at all. So one
set of control systems (the warriors) are CREATING conflict
by trying to inhibit the autonomy (not consciously, but that
is what they are doing) of others. Since the warriors don't
understand PCT, they are creating this malfunction out of
ignorance. So I still have no moral complaint here. As I said
in my first post, the drug war is just malfunction-producing
idiocy (stupidity) that results from a failure to understand
the nature of autonomy. So problems like the drug war can be
solved, not by trying to articulate better moral principles, but
simply by understanding how control systems work. A person who
understands control theory would simply shake their heads in
dismay at the drug warrior -- just as a person who understands
plumbing shakes their head in dismay at the person who pours
grease down the drain; both are just watching people create
malfunction.

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, 11 Sep 1992 17:20:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      On using the same language

From Greg Williams (920911 - 2)

>CHUCK TUCKER 920911

>... I was somewhat startled by Greg's post
>92090[8] in which he noted that he was concerned with several
>types of "manipulation".  I can see what he is concerned with
>but I have seen these as types of "social transactions" and
>have tried to reserve "manipulation " to action which is
>designed "to manage or control (sic) artfully or by a shrewd
>use of influence especially in an unfair and fradulent way"

I'd be happy to use "social transactions" (or "suggestion" or, my preference,
"PURPOSIVE INFLUENCE") instead of "manipulation."

>But, whatever type of social transaction, I hope there is agreement that each
person involved CONTROLS his/her own conduct and what transpires between A and
B is NOT control.

Yes! Back to square one (my "prolegomenon"), where I was trying to be careful
to say that one CANNOT PCT-control another's perceptions. All one can PCT-
control is one's own perceptions. How could I be more explicit about this?

>The above relates to what I noted last Spring (not found in the
>issue of CLOSED LOOP on "Social Control") that we ought to get
>our terms specified as best we can in the beginning of our
>conversations.

Amen. That's what I've been saying all along (and why I've needed to become
"Talmudic" at times).

>... we [often] falsely assume agreement on the specification of our terms.

I agree completely.

>Yes, words are ambiguious in their "meanings" but with all of the other words
>that each of us has available to use it seems that we might be able, for at
>least a moment or two, to try to be more precise and specific in what we say
>to each other.

And to be able to try to do that without others complaining about the level of
detail (sometimes) necessary! Do I wish!!!!

>Set those reference levels more precisely and narrow the gain thus increasing
>the error and reducing our range of allowable words; let's improve our
>control!

Right on, right on, right on.

Best,

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU