HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:andaling@fac.anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:31:48 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: gaia, linguistics

[Avery Andrews 930127.1100]

An additional comment on parsing & production:  I think the real test
for success for an approach to these problems is if they can explain
why comprehending garbled input is easier if you have some idea of
what is likely to be said.  That is, the linguistic mechanisms seem
able to use  the grammar (whatever it is that specifies the string-
structure relationship) in such a way that *partial* knowledge of both
the overt string and the semantic structures can be fleshed out into
a full picture of both.  My impression is that there are guys at
CMU & elsewhere working on this, but not with exciting results.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:Z_KURTZERML@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU>
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"csg-l@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 15:14:26 -0600
From:         Z_KURTZERML@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU
Subject:      ?

what is this about my margins?
  i.n.kurtzer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:bnevin@ccb.bbn.com>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:49:26 EST
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      developments

[From: Bruce Nevin (Mon 930125 11:17:47)]

(Bill Powers (930122.1430) ) --

An excellent development!

(Z_KURTZERML@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:36:31) --

It looks to me as though you are assuming that your mailer
software inserts returns at the ends of lines, and just letting
the lines wrap on your screen where they will.  Try inserting a
return each time a line gets about as long as these are.  My
mailer software does not wrap lines.  I have some pen marks along
the top of my terminal.  I them to calibrate my reference
perceptions when I have to remember to wrap lines manually.  (I
usually call up a text editor from within the mailer program, and
that wraps lines automatically.)

(Greg Williams (930123) ) --
(Avery.Andrews 930124.0435 ) --

Avery, what you bring to this especially is the fine-honed skills
in academic polemics that are an explicit part of training in
linguistics at MIT.  Effective argumentation seems definitely to
be in order.  Your proposed outline illustrates the point nicely.
Your contribution can be invaluable no matter who writes the
piece.

(In the past, that rhetorical style has infuriated me, but for
rather different reasons.  In arguing for PCT there is no need to
distort facts the way e.g. Lees (review of _Syntactic
Structures_), Postal (_Constituent Structures_, etc.) and many
others have done, because in the present instance there is no
need for straw men.  The folly of the opposition is genuine,
of their own making, and apparently universal.)

(Robert K. Clark Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:52:00 ) --
>Is offering sympathy "Positive Feedback?"

Is an answering groan from another part of the avalanche positive
feedback?

        Bruce
        bn@bbn.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:eprince@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:21:07 EST
From:         Eileen Prince <eprince@LYNX.DAC.NORTHEASTERN.EDU>
Subject:      repeated plea

Over the holidays, I posted a "job offer" for someone who knows PCT as
it applies to organizational behavior to do a basically free
presentation in Atlanta during mid-April (the 13th in the morning).  I
repeat the plea again and hope that there is someone in the Atlanta area
who might be able to do it.  I will be presenting on a different topic
during the pre-conference symposium and can therefore not do it, not
that I have the qualifications anyhow.  I really see this as an
opportunity to promote PCT and to help some ESL program administrators
who are coping with very difficult situations as are all in ESL
particularly these days.

Please get back to me if you have even the remotest interest.  This
being TESOL, they have given us a total of $100 for all symposium
expenses (one of the types of situations that ESL professionals are
generally up against).  However, the speaker would be made most welcome,
would have a chance to proselytize, and would meet what I think will be
a very interesting group of people.

Last call....

Best,

Eileen

eprince@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:maler@vercors.imag.fr>
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.5.6 6/30/89)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:05:55 MET
From:         Maler <maler@IMAG.FR>
Subject:      Re: myths article
              12:26)

[From Oded Maler (930125)]

Re: Feedback too slow

I posted this inquiry to a realtively-prominent researcher in
motor control, and the following answer contains some references
that might be intersting.

--------------------------------------------
>Secondly with regard to your question-
>there is out from December the last issue on Current Contents
>in Neurobiology-motor control
>with reviews  about role of feedback
>(either by Hasan or Laquaniti I dont remember)
>A couple of years ago there was also a review by Hasan and
>Stewart in a book
>in the series Excersise and Sport Science Reviews
> (1988  or 1986 0r 1987).
>It is generally a matter of debate- a lot of things can be
>done without feedback.
>Actually there is also a paper by Ghez in the
>Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on the Brain (1990).

---------------------------------

Hope this helps

--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
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:ATEDF@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:59:56 -0700
From:         Ed Ford <ATEDF@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      new twist to rubber band

from Ed Ford (930128:1100)

I'd like to add a feature to my rubber band post of (930127.1018).
You can show others what it is like to try and control another's
actions.  I had my wife, Hester, hold the two knotted rubber bands
and my son, Joseph, point his finger and Hester tried to follow his
pointed finger (as he moved it about) with the knot.  I then gently
said "I'll help and took her arm to help her achieve her goal".
Anyone want to guess the response?  "Hey, I can do this myself" was
what she said.  Her attention immediately went from her chosen goal
of trying to follow the pointed finger of Joseph with the knot to
getting me off her back.  May I suggest when you try this to using
someone with whom you have already established a close and warm
relationship.  I don't want to be sued.  And, Bill, you can't get
that out of a $2,000 computer.

What do you think?

Ed Ford ATEDF@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
10209 N. 56th St., Scottsdale, Arizona 85253  Ph.602 991-4860
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:psy_delprato@emunix.emich.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:48:47 -0500
From:         psy_delprato@EMUNIX.EMICH.EDU
Subject:      Subscription Info

Can subscription info to CSG-L be passed on (again)?

Thanks.

Dennis Delprato
psy_delprato@emunix.emich.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:andaling@durras.anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:23:08 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Abs & Winstein (feedback too slow)

[Avery Andrews 930127.1710]
  Rick Marken (930112.0800)

 > If you want
 >to read more amusing statements about feedback being "too slow" made by
 >authoritative leaders in the study of human movement control , try the article
 >by
 >Abbs and Winstein in M. Jeannerod (ED) Attention and Performance XIII,
 >Hilldale, Erlbaum, 1990

I had a look at it, and didn't find the discussion about speed silly
at all.  They debunked the 200ms myth, showed that feedback
thru the oral track could occur in as little as 12 msec, noted
that feedback from the distal arms was faster than the proximal
arms, maybe in the 30 msec range, etc.  It isn't my field, but I
didn't see any figures that were at variance with common sense, &
the generaltrend of the literature.

What I did find intriguing was the following assertion:

 "Technically, a feedback system is one in which an error signal
  directly drives a corrective adjustment >at the site where the
  error is introduced<" (p. 366, my emphasis)

This was supposed to entail that compensetory lip adjustment couldn't
be feedback (this is when someone is trying to make, say, a /w/,
which requires the lips to come close together, and one lip is
disturbed, & the other goes further to make up for it).

Does anyone know any basis for this `technical' restriction on the
scope of feedback?  It seems patently wrong, even on the basis
of the classic examples of thermostat and ships rudder, where
the error might be introduced in front hall, when Fred leaves
the front door open for a while, and the compensatory adjustment
is made in the basement by the furnace starting.

I didn't have the time to read the whole article carefully, but I
did notice that the authors are caught up in the stampede of
enthusiasm for `motor programs', which still appear to me to be
a rather vague and woolly concept that we might hope to get somewhere
by replacing with the ECS.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:Z_KURTZERML@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU>
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"csg-l@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:36:31 -0600
From:         Z_KURTZERML@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU
Subject:      hello

  to everyone and anyone:
    i have now come back to school and my ears are perked for the latest squabbl
e.  while in dallas i drove my parent's new car. the power stearing was jacked
    because whenever i would turn the wheel it would assist and then work agains
t
    the direction i was moving the steering. fortunately it only opposed me
    briefly and then assist again (more help than hurt). is there a neurophysica
l
    disorder that is common to this. bourbon once mention to me two disorders
    that sound similar; one was when a target position was fixed (intention
    disoder?) the other was with tracking (i could tell and didn't want to test
    whether the mechanism opposed only during the motion or when the wheel was
    fixed at a certain degree.
    there is was a russian political theorist that concentrated on how most
    and the most beneficial interactions between organisms were cooperative;
    it was written counter to darwin's ideas of struggle and the social and
    political conclusions drawn from his ideas, ideas that unfortunately have
    not been played out and remain as status quo justifications for for the
    miserable lot of many. anyway, his name is was Kropokin and the book is
    Mutual Aid (stick with the title, i think i misspelled his name).

  to bourbon: that's great that your going for the journal of the experimental
    analysis of behavior. please incude my name; however, i'll admit that my par
t   was minimal and my grasp shaky (i thought differently then). in fact, i
    used the ideas for my Sparta term paper; i'll send you a copy.
    the new teacher here, your replacement, is young bright graduate of UT,
    but ----i hate this computer!! $^#^#&!!---she is ECLECTIC. that wonderful
    aphorism for not taking a stand. maybe a little subterfuge is required.

  just your average lumpenproletariat
  i.n.kurtzer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:andaling@durras.anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:52:58 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      formulations & gain

[Avery.Andrews 930126.510]
  Rick Marken 930125

Indeed high-gain systems maintain the perceptions at the references
pretty closely, but if the feedback systems involved in kinesthetic
movement control are high gain, then Schmidt & Bizzi have some
excellent arguments against this kind of control! (as the norm,
for certain kinds of movements).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:mmt@ben.dciem.dnd.ca>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:13:02 EST
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject:      Re: robotics and degrees of freedom

[Martin Taylor 930121 11:00]
(Bill Powers 930120.1530)

>There's one thought to hold firmly in mind: it is highly unlikely
>that the lower reaches of the brain and the cerebellum are
>computing the quantitative inverse of a 6x6 (or when you come
>down to it, a 26x26) matrix in order to move the limbs, walk,
>balance, and so on, all at the same time and in real time. SO
>THERE HAS TO BE A MUCH SIMPLER WAY.

Without meaning to water down anything you say in the above or in the rest
of this post, isn't it possible to see reorganization as a way of doing a
reasonable approximation to a set of possible inverse kinematic solutions
in far-from-real time?  The signs of the output actions, I think, should
at least match the signs of the exact solution.  Later in the posting, you
go so far as to make a quantitative relation between two reference signals
being sent to different lower ECSs.  If you allow this kind of relationship
to be specified (I thought it was unnecessary), then reorganization might
be bringing one ever closer to a set of exact solutions.

(I say "set", because there are all sorts of conditions under which the
appropriate sign changes, as in: "To move the fingertip upward in visual space,
>either the vertical shoulder angle or the elbow angle should be
>changed, or both. Put that way, the problem sounds ambiguous,
>because whether crooking the elbow would raise or lower the
>visual y position of the fingertip depends on how the arm is
>configured relative to the line of sight from the eye.")

If I am seeing this correctly, nature has evolved both a genetic and an
adaptive (reorganization) way of providing approximate inverse kinematic
solutions which reduce the load on the actual control systems, reducing
the potential conflicts among them when they act in real time.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:andaling@fac.anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:29:13 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Monkeying around with heads

[Avery.Andrews 930126.1219]

Bizzi, Morasso & Polit (1978) (J. Neurophys.) does seem to contain a fair
amount of quantitative data, tho I don't really know if it's enough.
Pretty gruesome in places, tho.

On a more pleasant note, I've been working up a collection of tools to
do simple simulations of goings on in single joints in C (PC only, at
this point), & have:

  a) easy reading of parameter files

  b) sensible coordinate systems for graphics displays (origin where you
       want it, aspect ratio compensated for, arbitrary scaling of
       distance units to pixels, positive y = up).

  c) a methodology where the basic control system simulation can
       be done by boilerplate C function calls.

So far all I've done with it is a damped spring in a gravitational
field, & presumably NSCK 4 will be much better when it's ready, but
meanwhile, anyone who'se impatient to do some C hacking is welcome to
have what I've got so far.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:andaling@durras.anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:25:04 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      reviews & replies

[Avery Andrews 930123.1825]

I think the reviews & replies proposal is a great opportunity, but it
also carries a certain risk of getting clobbered again, since the usual
myths about feedback are probably all out there, & I don't think the
current range of PCT publications deals with them adequately.  So I think
there's got to be some kind of `myths about feedback' article included
to function as a preface.  Something along the lines of Bill's
`Objections to PCT posting' (covering feedback too slow and deafferentation),
but dressed in full academic battle gear.

It might be useful to point out that PCT is basically in the same camp
as the dynamics crowd (yes, Kugler, Turvey, etc.) as opposed to `orthodox'
computational cog. sci, if there actually is such a thing anymore (in
the sense that I suspect that nobody really sees it as The Truth
anymore, although there are people like me who think that a certain
amount of useful work can still be done from that point of view).

Something else that might be true, & if so, worth pointing out, is that
misunderstandings about feedback may well have directed research
into areas such as acquired skills that arguably involve a lot of
pre-programming, and away from rountine but non-stereotyped manipulative
activity.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: tsu1@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: TIME SERIES FORECASTING/KALMAN FILTER
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:41:55 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620


I am working in a project dealing with the forecasting of traffic congestion
in urban road networks, for use in a real time drivers' information system.
I used formulations like

^y(t+1) = a1.y(t) + a2.y(t-1) + ..... +
          b11.q1(t) + b12.q1(t-1) + ..... +
          b21.q2(t) + b22.q2(t-1) + ..... +
            .......
          c1.yh(t+1) + c2.yh(t) + ...
          d11.qh1(t) + d12.qh1(t-1) + ..... +
          d21.qh2(t) + d22.qh2(t-1) + ..... +         (1)
         
          
where ^y(t+1) the predicted level of flow at time t+1 at the link of interest
       y(t)   the measured flow at the link of interest
       qi(t)  the measured flow at link i upstream of the link of interest 
       yh(t)  historical flow for the link of interest at time t
       qhi(t) historical flow for link i at time t
              (historical flow (t) = average flow(t) over the last few days) 

and kalman filter theory to identify the system parameters which are assumed to
be time varying.
I used several formulations (differnt terms of the AR and MA components)  but
I did not find any formulation that consistently performs better.

I then tried to predict the ratio between predicted and historical 
flow ^ry(t+1)=^y(t+1)/yh(t+1) and then from this ratio to predict the ^y(t+1)
using formulations like
  ^ry(t+1) = A1.ry(t) + A2.ry(t-1) + ...
             B11.rq1(t) + ........ 
             B21.rq2(t) + ....

   ^y(t+1) = ^ry(t+1).yh(t+1)

where   rqi(t) = qi(t)/qhi(t)

I found that the latter approach consistently performs better than the former.
There is often a regularity in the patterns observed every day, but given the
fact in both formulations I used historical info I didn't expect significant
differences in the forecasts.
Can anybody help me on how I can a develop a theoretical proof of this outcome?
Do you know of any papers discussing a relevant subject?


Thanks very much,

Petros Vythoulkas
TSU1@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Transport Studies Unit
University of Oxford
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:andaling@durras.anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:57:52 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      linguistic theories

[Avery Andrews 930128.1120]

One reason that I mostly confine myself to merely presenting the generative
line on things rather than trying to make a serious argument that
it's better than, say, operator grammar, is that I don't know.  There's
something about the Harrissian approach that I just don't get, &
until I either get or it figure out what is wrong with it I have no
intention of saying much of anything against it.

In general, I think that current linguistic theories should be regarded
as just being resources that are out there, and that from a PCT
perspective, one should just take whatever insights, if any, that
they might seem to offer. And, at the moment, I see Motor Control
as a *much* higher priority target.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:g-cziko@uiuc.edu>
X-Sender: cziko@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Unverified)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:48:41 -0600
From:         CZIKO Gary <g-cziko@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Wickens

[from Gary Cziko 930125.0453 GMT]

Rick Marken (930124.1000) says:

>I didn't remember your mention of Wickens. I know of him because he
>does a LOT of publishing in the journal Human Factors (he is on the
>editorial board), he has written chapters in some of the major "compendia"
>of Human Factors "wisdom"; he wrote a chapter on manual control for an
>important collection of "basic psychological facts" for Human Factors
>engineers. I've never met him but he is highly visible to me from his
>very active publication activity. I believe he would be considered one
>of the current gurus of manual control. He seems to know the mathematics
>of control theory quite thoroughly and he knows all the control engineering
>tools for studying control systems (Laplace transforms, Bode plots,
>etc etc). So he would probably be able to give a very intimidating
>review of our control research -- just what we need, I think. He'll
>tell us why psychologists already know all this (PCT) and more; our
>challenge will be to politely explain that they have missed the most
>important point -- that control systems control their own perceptual
>input relative to secularly adjustable reference levels. I would bet
>dollars to donuts that he won't get it -- but, like William F. Buckley
>(who remains clueless about nearly everything except drug policy) he
>will at least be a capable opponent.

Very interesting.  I had mentioned with his grad student the possibility of
my presenting Bill Powers's demos (which the grad student has seen) to
Wickens and his group.  Now I'm not sure if I'm intimidated by what you say
or more eager to do it.

The trouble is, he would be able to eat me alive concerning the math stuff
(I've never plotted any Bodes--does this tell you if your control systems
bodes well for future control?  Maybe I should be doing this.).  But then
again I only need to present myself as an educational psychologist who is
intrigued with PCT as a model for understanding "higher-order" types of
behavior and would like to find out what the manual-control experts think
of this approach.  And the knowledge that behavior controls perception does
give me somewhat of an advantage (or so I've heard).

Could be fun.  But could also be a disaster.

I'll keep you posted.  If I do get the chance and go for it, I would
appreciate some pre-game coaching.  You may not know Wickens, but you've
already seen the game films many times.--Gary
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary 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