HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: marken@aero.org (Richard Marken)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Movin'
Date: 20 Nov 1992 21:20:05 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

I'm moving to a new office and a new e-mail address. So I
will be unsubscribing from csg-l briefly and , with any luck
(for me; maybe not for all of you), I will be signing back on 
soon with my new address (in my sig, below; also, note, new
work phone #).

Best regards

Rick (the true believer .. er .. modeller) Marken

     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@courrier4.aero.org
(310) 336-6215 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)



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:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:05:37 -0700
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Science rejects are model -- unreviewed

[From Bill Powers (921120.2000)]

News flash. Science has returned the arm model article by Greg and me
unreviewed. The explanation was that its priority was judged against all
other materials currently on hand and found too low to be among the 20%
they will publish. It took them three weeks instead of the customary two
to reach this decision.

It will be interesting to see what is published in the last couple of
weeks of February.

So where next?

Greg, I tried to call you but nobody's home.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,

Bill P.
From: Len.Lansky@UC.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: *CSGintro* revision -Reply
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:16:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-receipt-to: Len.Lansky@UC.Edu
Registered-mail-reply-requested-by: Len.Lansky@UC.Edu
X-Envelope-to: CSG-L%UIUCVMD.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
UA-content-id: 13410A2B01AA4A44
X-Hop-count: 2
A1-type: MAIL

[len lansky (921118.13110]

The text did not all come through because of "exceeded mhs length
limit" here.  It stopped at pargraph "This book spells out a
complete model of how the human brain and system......"

Would you be kind enough, Dag, to send me the remainder.  I want
to use it for a graduate seminar in social psychology on control
theory.  I will be asking for more help in planning same in a few
weeks--the seminar is for winter quarter.  Thanks

len lansky
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 09:53:16 PST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:53:16 PST
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      "beliefs", standards

[From Rick Marken (921118.0900)]

Martin Taylor (921117 16:40]

>I have used "belief" to represent a structured perception.

Bill Powers (921117.2000) said EXACTLY what I planned
to say about this (only he said it better) but he got  to
it first. Excellent post, Bill.

Martin Taylor (921117 17:00) --

>I'm a bit confused.  I knew this was foolhardy territory to get into, but
>I can't see what the discussion of interaction procedures that evolve into
>conventions known as standards has to do with the system level.

This is part of the definition problem. The talk about standards is
highly ambiguous -- sometimes I think people are talking about
reference levels and sometimes about perceptual variables. I thought
we had clarifed it earlier a bit -- my conclusion was that Ed Ford
(the main "standards" guy) uses the word standards to refer to "higher
level perceptual variables" -- types of perceptions that might be
described by words like system concept, principle, value, belief,
etc. He tries to help people set the "right" reference levels for
these perceptions. So my reply to your post was really aimed at Ed --
I just don't think control of higher order variables is any more
important in social interactions than control of other perceptual
variables.

> Standards
>include greeting patterns, dress codes, thank-you notes for gifts, and all
>sorts of things for which the external appearance is what matters.

So what you mean by standards is "perceptual variables that involve another
person". Well, now we have another possible meaning for "standard". Why
don't we just stick to the PCT model terminology (and semantics)?

>As you can see, I don't think standards are anything that people control

Boy, you got me. In the quote above it sounded like standards were
social perceptions. Now they are something that can't be controlled. And
yet people reorganize when controlling them produces conflict. So it must
not be failure to control standards that is leading to reorganization.
But the reorganization leads to new, stable standards.  So standards are
a perceptible (to Martin) side effect of reorganizing to control
perceptions that are not standards?  In other words, people control
perceptual variables; this can appear to an observer are a process of
converging on social standards. Is this it? If so, I completely agree.

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
Original_To:  BITNET%"csg-l@uiucvmd.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 11:50:00 CDT
From:         PAPANICOLAOU@UTMBEACH.BITNET
Subject: Re: Gloomy Sunday

From Tom Bourbon  [922311 -- 11:45 CST]
From Tom Bourbon  [922311 -- 11:45 CST]
     My apologies for the aborted message [922311 -- 8:20 CST].  I was
hoping mad after reading Bill's posts concerning the rejection from
*Science*  (as in BIG SCIENCE).  I realized my reply was going to turn
into a flame job and tried to abort -- that would be CNTRL-C.  Instead,
I hit CNTRL-Z and immediately logged out.  Imagine my surprise when I
found the half-line message from me, sitting in the mail box.
   "Hoping mad." What a slip! No hope, but lots of hopping!
Tom
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:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:32:00 MET
From:         Maler <maler@IMAG.FR>
Subject:      Re: Complexes of perceptions
              of perceptions" (Nov 18,  7:06)

[From Oded Maler 921119]

 [From Bill Powers (921117.2000)]

You seem to claim that a signal which is a combination of two
or more other signals "really" (explicitly) exists when there
is a "gate" that takes the two wires and outputs on a third wire
a signal whose observed value is the combination of the two.

Now consider a different situation where those two signals are
not combined to create a new perceptual function which is servoed,
but rather are both servoed independently but their effects
are combined via the output function (e.g., two nerve fibers that
feed into neighboring parts of the same muscle).

In such situation a, there exist virtually a combined signal which
can behave as-if it is the controlled signal, but it does not really
exist inside the system. Put it another way, the "real" signals
can be probed directly (in principle) by an external observer, but
in order to observe the "virtual" signals, the measurement instruments
of the observer should also include the missing circuits for creating
the combinations.

--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:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 12:16:49 MST
From:         "Kenneth L. Hacker, Ph.D., Communication" <KHACKER@NMSUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: primer part II

Many thanks, Chuck.  I have gotten so far behind with reading CSG and
anything related to it, I have decided to start over.  I checked out
Powers' book on perception and will catch up on the basics during Thanksgiving
break.  I have stored past notes that you sent to me.  If you have any
print copies of articles that you have done relating control theory to social
interaction, I would love to have any copies you can provide.  THANKS!

Ken Hacker
Dept. of Communication Studies
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
From: marken@AERO.ORG
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: "beliefs"
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:12:35 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 14:12:35 PST

[From Rick Marken (921118.1300)]

Martin Taylor (921118 11:30) to Bill Powers (921117.2000)

> There is absolutely nothing about a structured percept that
>prevents that structure from being the result of a perceptual input function
>in a higher ECS, but neither is there any reason why such a higher ECS must
>exist.

Nothing except the way the model works.

>HPCT does not have as a basic principle that the *conscious* perception of
>something depends on the existence of a scalar perceptual signal representing
>the CEV that the "something" corresponds to.

Conscious/schmonscious -- a perception is a scalar perceptual signal
in PCT.

>No, your point isn't difficult.  It is, I think, unnecessary.

Well, I'm really glad that YOU know that YOU understand Bill's
point. And thanks for helping me and Tom and Bill and the rest of
us understand how the PCT model works.

>  It raises
>the same flags as the "grandmother cell" does, and thereby warns people
>off directions of enquiry that might be profitable.

What is the problem with the "grandmother" cell? PCT says there
are many gandmother cells -- for grandma intensities, sensations,
transitions, configurations (this is probably the on you are
thinking of), relationships, sequences, programs, principles,
categories, system concepts. What's the "red flag"; what directions
of inquiry are unprofitable -- the search for controlled perceptual
variables, perhaps?

>This is quite right, and there is no reason why a complex should not serve
>as input to any number of perceptual functions, while still acting as a
>complex.  If you can imagine it, think of performing a golf swing (or a tennis
>racket).

Forget imagining it; try modelling it.

>Please note that I am remaining agnostic as to whether complexes as such have
>reality outside the mind of the analyst, or whether the higher ECSs that
>convert them to scalar perceptual signals are actually necessary.

This is science, Martin; not theology. Show me the model that you
have in mind; how do these "complexes" work in the PCT model?

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:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:30:54 -0600
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was cziko@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU
From:         "Gary A. Cziko" <g-cziko@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Usenet (NetNews) Mystery

[from Gary Cziko 921123.2223 GMT]

I occasionally check the Usenet (NetNews) version of CSGnet (where we are
group "bit.listserv.csg-l") to see if it is keeping up with all the
activity of CSGnet.  I have no idea of how many people participate on
CSGnet via Usenet, but it does offer some advantages over the LISTSERV
format, particularly for those users with limited mail storage (other it
does seem to run several hours behind the LISTSERV setup).

To my horror, I discovered that when I checked CSGnet through my local
Usenet node there was not a trace of Bill Powers!  Among messages dating
back to 921117 there Marken, Taylor, Bourbon, Ford, Nevin, Jackson, etc.
etc., and even Cziko.  But nowhwere was a post from Bill Powers to be seen.

All mail sent to CSGnet is supposed to be automatically sent to the Usenet
new group.  How mail from Bill Powers is being selectively discriminated
against is beyond my comprehension.

I would greatly appreciate if others on CSGnet who have access to Usenet
(NetNews) check out "bit.listserv.csg-l" and let me know via direct mail
whether they can find Bill Powers or if anybody else appears missing.
Hopefully, I will learn that there is something quirky about my local
machine and Bill is getting out on other Usenet systems.--Gary
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary A. Cziko                    Telephone: 217.333.8527
Educational Psychology           FAX: 217.244.7620
University of Illinois           E-mail: g-cziko@uiuc.edu
1310 S. Sixth Street             Radio: N9MJZ
210 Education Building
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6990
USA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:13:03 EST
From:         mmt@BEN.DCIEM.DND.CA
Subject: Re: pasking levels

[Martin Taylor 921117 11:00]
(Avery Andrews 921117.1125)

>I'll have to mull this over, but a random remark:
>
>>I don't think there are "strong social constraints on serious checking of
>>comprehension" when lack of comprehension would probably lead to serious
>>perceptual error in the Originator of the message.
>
>I'm not sure, but I bet there are plenty of cases where nasty consequences
>follow from (some ?) people's reluctance to really make sure they've been
>understood, tho probably not in cases as clear cut as you bomb example.

Nasty consequences can follow from any act, and it is not always possible to
control the perceptions that they disturb.  But if nasty consequences normally
followed from some actions that were the result of error in soem ECS, the
individual would probably have reorganized.  "Nasty consequences" = high
error -> reorganization.

If there are social constraints against ensuring understanding, either there
would tend to be more error in other perceptions if people pressed for full
understanding, or the social system (standard set) is unstable and evolving.
Perhaps both.  Social conventions presumably evolve toward actions that tend
to result in minimum overall error in the individuals who use them in
interactions.

Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-receipt-to: Len.Lansky@UC.Edu
Registered-mail-reply-requested-by: Len.Lansky@UC.Edu
X-Envelope-to: CSG-L%UIUCVMD.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
UA-content-id: 99DF082B01AA4A44
X-Hop-count: 2
A1-type: MAIL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:00:00 -0500
From:         Len.Lansky@UC.EDU
Subject:      Formatting -Reply

second reply to formatting
[from Len Lansky (921117.11570]
I goofed last time by not using brackets and parentheses.  Sorry
about that.

My format fit my disk; Dag--yours did not.  OFten a word or two
were dangling in next line.  I suspect 64 or 65 is maximaum that
will work with my setup.  I would like to see such a norm set; it
would make my work much easier.

len lansky
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:55:00 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      images, etc.

 [Avery Andrews 921129.0930]

So the way it looks to me at this moment, the perceptual reference
`signals' that you would derive from the text to tell you where to go
would actually have a lot in common with the `mental models' postulated
by people like Johnson-Laird.  Their supposed properties are (to my
mind at least) a rather unclear combination of imagistic & and logical
properties, & which Bill's view of things might help to clarify.

So next question:  how do we distinguish between:

  a picture of a cat chasing a dog

  a picture of a dog chasing a cat

Maybe bonkers idea.  What if there were two areas, an event area where
patterns of neural activity corresponding to verbs occurred, and an
entity, where patterns corresponding to the entities occurred, with the
normal situation being that the event pattern (thought of as a static
configuration of some fibers firing and others not) coexists with
a sequence of entity patterns, in a standard order (presumably
Agent - Patient, though there's lots of other roles to fit in).

These would get correlated with perception via complex events being
scanned in a characteristic order.  E.g., `chase' refers to a perception
whereby on the entity level, you look first at the one behind and
register its features on the entity level, and then do so for the
chasee, while `flee' scans in the reverse order.

Remembering a complex perception would then amount to remembering a
sequence of scanning activities & attendent results.  How this is to
be achieved I don't have any clear ideas.  But, for what it's worth,
the inner representations I'm suggesting have pretty much the same
organization as appears overtly in manual sign language, where
signs representing actions are articulated simultaneously with those
designating participants (coded as pointing gestures to positions
in space, which have been previously been associated with specific
referents).

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
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:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:30:14 MET
From:         Maler <maler@IMAG.FR>
Subject:      Perceptual Complexities
              11:07)

[Oded Maler 921120]

 (Bill, Martin and Rick (the true believer) 921119)

The question whether some vector in time-space can be considered
as an aggragate scalar, depends the granularity (again,
spatio-temporal) of the model. In Bill's example of the stretch
reflex, if you look from the point of view of single muscle cell or
a neuron, there is no such a thing as "tension along the muscle group",
it is only in the head of the beholder, there is no single probe
than you can put inside that will give you the value of this variable.
Bill claims that when the whole is indeed the (statistical) sum of
its parts (= positive linear combination) then the virtual signal
can be considered as "really" existing in the model.

* * *

The question whether you can servo two low-level signals
that are combined thru action, in such a way that it looks
as if you control their combination (virtual signal), is,
I think, dual to the question being able to control the
real signal which is their combination by changing their
reference signals. I'm not in the mood to try to prove it,
but I'd appreciate counter-examples.

* * *

The difference between real and virtual signals (to the extent it
really exists) might have very interesting epistemological
consequences. If you adopt, say, voltages along axons as your "atomic"
units of perceptual variables, you might distinguish between world
views of different persons according to whether some CEV has or has
not a dedicated correlated real signal. It is also might help in
understanding the role of words, not as designators of meaning, but
as a set of abstract common entities the each of the speakers of the
same language has a dedicated signal for most of them. This way, words
strengthen the illusion of common external world, independent of
the different low-level hierarchical structure of each individual.

Bon weekend a tous

--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
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Phone: +1 602 963 6474
Content-Type: text
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:34:11 GMT
From:         rljackson@ATTMAIL.COM
Subject:      Re: Promoting PCT

[From Ray Jackson (921119.2345)]

for Dag Forssell (921119.2100)

Re: WHY A THEORY-BASED LEADERSHIP PROGRAM?

My, you're up late. I'm always thrilled to help your efforts. Just a
few minor comments and suggestions (nothing major, I'll leave those
to Bill).

>I have some trouble with the 2-dimensional metaphor.
Understandable; I find that metaphor more useful in the education
arena, when I can explain it standing up, using my hands, and looking
in poeple's eyes. I like what you did to simplify it later in your
letter.

>In its elaborated form, a Hierarchy of Perceptual Control Theory...
I agree, PCT only for intial introductions in the business world; in
fact, I only put this in the summary as an introduction for the
graduate class so they understood what HPCT was. I did double-checked
-- I had taken it out of the version I distribute at the plant.

>What quotes from Kuhn do you have in mind? What do you present?
Mostly those where he summarizes his findings. Often, I read aloud
entire paragraphs from his book. I'll put those citations out in my
next post. In that context, I also often use Joel Barker (The Power
of Paradigms, book & video) as an introduction to a discussion of
mindsets. Although Barker is shallow and inconclusive, he's thought
provoking when followed with valid material.

>Note: Only two pages. No enclosures.
Beautiful. It can be read while another meeting is going on.


>The recent article: ALLIED-SIGNAL'S TURNAROUND BLITZ (Fortune,11/30)
>recounts a success story of corporate revolution and turnaround. It
>spells out several issues important to the revolution. I have
>grouped them in three categories...
This is great; talk about working with THEIR error signals!

>PCT can explain a wide variety of phenomena of everyday experience
>because it goes beyond the predominant focus on cause and effect to
>explain the consistency of outcomes through varying means...
>Understanding people no longer has to be complex and confusing, a
>matter of luck or a gift...
This is EXACTLY what managers with the appropriate error signals
wonder while they're showering or having their morning coffee.

Good work, Dag.

Let me know how I can help (on video, my best side is my right, in
case you need help when CareerTrack or 60 minutes calls).

Best Regards,
Ray


********************************************************************
Ray L. Jackson                                  602-963-6474
3613 W. Saragosa St.
Chandler, Az 85226
attmail.com!rljackson
********************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 13:44:48 PST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:44:48 PST
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      Canon ahoy

[From Rick Marken (921119.1300)]

Bill Powers (921119.1000) --

>Rick Marken (921118.1300) --
>It is important for a loose canon not to fire when pointing inboard.

Ay. And I'd like to apologize to the mates for me little fit, thar.
You'd think I was ridin' HMS StimulS-R instead of the SS PCT.

Best reagrds

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