HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:05:00 GMT
From:         Dag Forssell <0004742580@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Theory, Ray, Eileen

[From Dag Forssell (921227 12.00)]

More on theory. As part of an introduction, I would like to briefly show
people the prevailing (inadequate) use of the Cartesian dualism. Here is
my draft. Comments solicited.
---------------------------------------------------------

                         EXISTING THEORY
                      The Cartesian dualism

                        __________________
                       |                  |
      Cause    --->    |      Machine     |     --->    Effect
                       |__________________|

                        __________________
                       |                  |
   Stimulus    --->    |   Conditioning   |     --->    Response
                       |__________________|

                        __________________
                       |                  |
 Leadership    --->    |   Conditioning   |     --->    Performance
                       |__________________|


      Conventional wisdom:
           When the response is not what you want, change the
           stimulus or leadership or work on the conditioning.


                        __________________
Scientific Method:     |                  |
Independent    --->    |   Conditioning   |     --->    Dependent
   variable            |__________________|             variable

                        __________________
                       |                  |
      Plan     --->    |   Conditioning   |     --->    Action
                       |__________________|

                        __________________
                       |                  |
      Input    --->    |  Neural network  |     --->    Output
                       |__________________|

      This scientific approach is entirely appropriate where the
      phenomenon under study is in fact a cause-effect mechanism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ray: I look forward to your edit suggestions on the Deming paper. Snail
mail has not delivered as yet what you mailed last weekend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eileen: Appreciate all your comments. I think my linguist/ESL daughter
might take an interest in your posts. I am thinking about a compilation
from your beginning. When did you first post about autism? Last March?

Best to all, Dag
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:18:36 CST
From:         Mark William Olson <mwog8061@UXA.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      neurosci, bye

Tom,
I principle I agree with you.  I agree that we don't just Describe differently
 in PCT--ideally we would do research differently some of the time.  But I think
 we can describe non-PCT research in PCT terms and I think that some of the
 research done is exactly how we would (or could) do it.  I didn't say all.  I
 am aware of the S-memory-R research paradigm you refer to, but I don't find
 myself exposed to this as much as you evidently do.  Some forms of memory, such
 as priming, are in the Connections, not at all capable of being conceived of as
 between S and R.  I'm even looking for such behavioristic paradigms and not
 seeing it in neuropsych literature (although I certainly did see it in
 cognitive psych lit).  C'mon, you can't tell me that you would not do a delayed
 matched to sample task where a monkey has to remember
under which bowl the food is that it is controlling for (poorly worded).  What
 is wrong with that.  Don't you want to know what areas are involved in this
 particular instance of control?  I will be away from e-mail till Jan 1 but I
 would like to continue this discussion--if I am wrong I want to be convinced.
 You can send replies directly to me at m-olson@uiuc.edu

Have a great holiday!

Mark
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, 26 Dec 1992 21:18:43 -0700
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Off time

My system's vaxes are going to be down from Sunday to Wednesday. See
you all then.

Best,

Bill P.
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:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:09:40 EST
From:         Eileen Prince <eprince@LYNX.DAC.NORTHEASTERN.EDU>
Subject:      getting out of the armchair

I am one who says very little on this list, though I read as much as
time will permit.  My reasons are that I am not a PCT theoretician and I
do not want to make comments that would not be useful in furthering the
dialogue.  However, if and when I learn enough, I will say more.

Just wanted to say that lurkers are not necessarily lazy or uninvolved.

AND...

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL

Eileen Prince
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:51:38 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         "Bill Cunningham, ATCD-G (8" <CUNNINGB@MONROE-EMH1.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:      On the lighter side

Holiday greetings--

The following exam is provided for those unable to relax over the holidays.
It consists of 4 short answer questions and 1 essay.
_______

How many PCTers does it take to

1.  Change a light bulb if the light bulb controls for change? _____

2.  Change a light bulb if the PCTer(s) control(s)s for change and the
light bulb doesn't care? ________

3.  Change a light bulb if the PCTer(s) control(s) for change and the light
bulb controls for no change.  Your answer should discuss loop gain of
appropriate systems, potential for layered protocols to reach mutually
acceptable solution, whether information theory is relevant to either control
system.  Provide the names of 3 reviewers who agree with you answer and
a working model in ADA or COBOL.  Cite references in three languages, at
least one of which is not alphabetic.

4.  Propose a means whereby two PCTers might determine whether a light bulb
found on table might control for no change.  HINT: flirting won't do it.

5.  Translate and provide correct grammar for the following:

   "De apibis et filibus apiarem semper dubitandum est."
---------------------------------------

The very best holiday wishes to all.  May all your perceptions be closely
alligned with your higher level control system, this day and forever more.

Bill Cunningham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 11:01:00 EST
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      different kind of fog

[From: Bruce Nevin (Tue 921222 10:44:42)]

(Rick, Marten) --

Gee, I wish you guys wouldn't huff and puff so much, it gets the
windows all fogged up.

And I hope you will keep on including elementary restatements of
what may seem obvious to you, at the risk even of seeming
patronizing in a 1-1 conversation.  First, when the private
conversation is reposted for the rest of us (as I hope such
conversations generally always shall be) what is obvious to you
may be essential tutorial to less practiced folks like me.  There
are a lot of different levels of expertise present, in a lot of
fields that intersect variously with PCT.  Secondly, and I doubt
this process is unique to me, I find that the effort to state
clearly what seemed obvious often discloses things that were not
obvious.  I think this has to do with participating in a
revolution with respect to fundamentals.

It seems to me that taking offense generally causes as much
trouble as giving it.  Must be a social-PCT way of putting that.

I am extremely grateful for the forebearance and tact with which
my efforts at participating here have been met.  Others have
commented on this quality, which is very rare indeed in the world
of electronic mail fora.  Bill attributes it to a change in
perspective brought about in each of us by understanding the
nature of control.  The jury is obviously out on that.  But
whatever the reasons for it, I hope we continue always so.

        Bruce
        bn@bbn.com
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, 27 Dec 1992 08:19:12 EST
From:         Eileen Prince <eprince@LYNX.DAC.NORTHEASTERN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: generative approach

In theory pure generative approaches are subject to the checks recently
outlined.  However, the latest version of Chomsky's theory with which I
am familiar allows for this to be gotten around.  The generative system
is allowed to overgenerate based on universal rather than specific
language-specific rules.  Then, whatever does not apply to language X is
filtered out through the use of what really amounts to cannonical forms.
 If something that does not fit these forms/constraints which are
language specific, it is discarded even though it has been generated.
Perhaps later versions of the theory (I think I'm going back to
Government and Binding, though there may be a bit of Logical Form here
too) deal with such theory-based problems differently.

I am reminded in this context of Bill Labov's comment on the Chomskyan
approach back in the mid 60's.  He said that "they" would claim
universal applicability for their theories and then offer to prove it by
saying "Let's take any language.  Hey, how about English?"

The point of all this is that when pre-conceived models take over good
theory goes out the window as I feel it has with Chomskyanism.  Hope
this has been relevant.

Best,

Eileen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:11:02 EST
From:         "CHARLES W. TUCKER" <N050024@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      HAVE A PLEASANT, PRODUCTIVE AND HAPPY 1993

Dear CSGers,

I have enjoyed the conversations and encourage the continuation of
of them.

Next year I plan a comment on "beliefs" which I think is crucial
to the further development of PCT; until PCT can deal with "beliefs"
its success at convincing others that it is a viable approach is
seriously hampered.  This I believe sincerely!!!!

May our work next year bring further comprehension of social life and
a reduction of conflict and suffering for everyone.

With deep respect and sincere appreciation to everyone,

                                                             Chuck
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, 27 Dec 1992 06:23:33 EST
From:         Eileen Prince <eprince@LYNX.DAC.NORTHEASTERN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Good News

To Ed:

I hope you will jog our memories around the date of your program's
airing.  I will encourage as many as I can to watch it.

Also, the book review idea is an interesting one.  I think one of the
newsletters I get from TESOL, my professional organization, has a
section for reviewing books which are not on ESL but of interest.  I'll
look into it as soon as I finish reading the book.

Best,

Eileen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:55:40 EST
From:         "j. f. arocha" <CYBN@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>

[From Francisco Arocha (921223; 18:49)]


Bill Powers (921222.0800)

>When I last looked, there were 132 subscribers to this list.
>Permit me a moment of impatience: when are some of you people
>going to get out of your armchairs?


Well, I guess I'm one of those 132 people in the list. I find it
very difficult to do PCT research when one is interested in
levels beyond the category. Anyhow, I've not given up and I plan
to spend a large portion of the days between Dec. 28 and Dec. 31
in an intensive care unit, trying to make sense of physicians'
behaviour in terms of PCT, at least to the extent that my
knowlege permits me. Maybe not everything is so grim...

Have everybody a happy holiday and a productive next year!

PCTvely yours,


Francisco
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:37:00 CST
From:         TJ0WAH1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      Bill, Gary, Tom

[From Wayne Hershberger]

Bill, I am delighted with your argument (Powers, 921220)--relating
perceptual and conceptual EVs.  Some of your remarks I found
particularly refreshing; for instance:

      All we see is the combination of the natural law and the law
      represented by the form of the perceptual function.
And,
      The...problem is to find organizations of the input
      functions that will yield controllable variables


As for your comment:
      Some added thoughts about this were in my head when I woke
      up (921221).
I can not help observing that it must have been a long night.

More later, Bill.

Gary Cziko:

The VOR is not perfect; nor is the optokinetic reflex.  I think
the gain (eye-velocity/head-velocity) of these two reflexes
combined is only about .9, meaning that during active head
rotation of 50 deg/s, images slip across the retina at 5 deg/s.

David Robinson claims that the VOR involves the control of eye
position as well as eye velocity.  He also claims that the
saccadic system CONTROLS EYE POSITION VIA CLOSED LOOP CONTROL, and
argues that this phylogenetically late system commandeered aspects
of the earlier VOR system in its development.

I believe Tom Bourbon's recent post regarding the control of error
is really an essay concerning feedforward. Feedforward can be
thought of as endogenous disturbances to reference signals, error
signals, or output (as I argued in my ABS article in the special
issue edited by Rick). You might want to reread Tom's posts with
that in mind.

Tom Bourbon:
Your post regarding the disturbance of error signals is germane to
the discussion Andy and I were having in Durango about Pavlovian
conditioning.  Has he read your post?

Warm regards, Wayne

Wayne A. Hershberger             Work: (815) 753-7097
Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology         Home: (815) 758-3747
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb IL 60115                  Bitnet: tj0wah1@niu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:46:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      One whole second

From Greg Williams (921221)

Mainly to Tom B. and Bill P., but anyone can join in.

What would a PCT model look like for a step tracking task? Would it be the
same as the model used so successfully for continuous tracking? Would its
parameters change with the amplitude of the step and/or the speed of the
step's rise (actually a ramp, in this case)? Maybe Tom could come up with
an answer after a few quick experiments. I'm interested in the possibility
of accurately determining the nonlinearities (if there) in the human control
task -- which the Air Force tracking people have identified. Maybe step
(ramp) tracking studies would be useful in this regard. One would be looking
for accurate prediction over only a second or so (but with varying ramp
rise times and amplitudes and directions (up or down)), especially with
regard to delay of movement onset, oscillations, overshoot -- should be
easy for somebody who can predict for One whole minute, right?

As ever,

Greg
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:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:02:16 EST
From:         Eileen Prince <eprince@LYNX.DAC.NORTHEASTERN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the van Karijan Brandenbergs

Rick's "confession" about enjoying the performance of a Nazi deserves
further comment.  What was, I believe, most insidious about the Nazis
and about other movements was/is their appeal to the higher and baser
emotions (or perhaps perceptions?) at the same time.  I confess that I
find old film footage of their spectacles incredibly moving, as I do
good renditions f "Deutschland uber Alles."  There is nothing "wrong"
with recognizing such feelings -- in fact denying them is probably bad
for us -- so long as we know what is happening to us.  I remember
watching Reagan speak (and Bush too, to some extent) and allowing myself
to get into it to the point of agreeing with what he was saying.  There
was something incredibly seductive about "his" ideas the way he
presented them.  I think that experiencing such feelings as fully as we
can prepares us better to deal with and combat them.  I was able to get
over a Reagan speech fairly quickly, but it gave me an understanding of
his magic with many people.

I also think that art can stand alone, outside of its political context.
Recently I went to a conference in Newport, Rhode Island.  My
inclinations are as leftist as those of anyone who went to college in
the early sixties, but I was able to enjoy the mansions there.  I felt
that another women who said that she could not bear to see or be in them
because of the ill-gained wealth that had bought them was depriving
herself of an experience that was for me marvelous.  Sort of like
refusing to acknowledge the majesty of the pyramids because of the slave
system that built them.

On a lighter note, I am reminded of the joke about the former Nazi general
(he had somehow escaped Nuremburh) who, upon his retirement, said that
he was going to now enjoy his three hobbies:  drinking fine wine,
listening to classical music, and torture.

Finally, and I know that some of you can put this into a more elegant
statement, human beings are not rational in the sense of having all of
their belief systems in sync with each other.  It is just this that, I
believe, allows Naziism and other systems of its ilk to flourish, and it
is this we must make ourselves aware of and deal with, not the beautiful
music that is also created.

Best,

Eileen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 3 Jan 1993 13:51:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Awesome demo

From Greg Williams (920103)

Gary Cziko 930103.0240 GMT] (I got "93" on the first try!)

>This is very strange indeed since the subject's responses are SIMILAR on
>the two trials and yet what she saw (the cursor pencil point) during the
>two trials was very DIFFERENT.  How can the subject respond similarly on
>two trials when what was seen (the "stimulus") was so different?

The two "responses" to two "very DIFFERENT" "stimuli" are NOT the SAME, only
SIMILAR. Skinnerians would have no problem with the fact that (even slightly)
DIFFERENT "responses" resulted from different "stimuli." And if you show them
results where successive "responses" are IDENTICAL, yet the "stimuli" in each
case are different, they will talk about "stimulus generalization" or say that
the organism can "lump" different-appearing stimuli (to the experimenter) into
ONE kind of "discriminative stimulus." But it gets even worse. If successive
"responses" are judged as different by the experimenter, they might say that
they really are all in the same "operant" set of responses.

>If anyone can come up with an explanation of this which does not look like
>closed-loop negative feedback model, please let us here on the CSGnet know
>about it.

At the level of the observed phenomena, it is obvious that the "stimulus" in
your experiment is affected by the "response." Skinnerians have NO problems
with such situations, which they call instances of "self-stimulation." But at
the generative-model level (should any of them dare to speak thereof, lest
they lose their "Skinnerian" labels!), some of them might argue that the
"discriminative stimulus" is "middle pencil point moving (either direction)
away from the middle line" and that the (ongoing) "operant" (set of
"responses") consists of "actions to move the middle pencil back toward the
middle line." Such a generative model makes no explicit reference (no pun
intended) to postulated internal (to the organism) states. (PCTers, of
course, will immediately note the IMPLICIT reference level. Skinner used to
argue that bringing in such hypotheticals would add nothing to the "analysis
of behavior," and, worse, would tend to distract one from the data. I still
think he had a point, TO A DEGREE. Yet, by hewing that line so cautiously, he
was unable to explain the existence of particular "wants" -- to which I
quickly add that he did not WANT to explain that). Also, the typical
Skinnerian would want to claim that the person would "respond" to the
"discriminative stimuli" because of PREVIOUS reinforcements having to do with
his/her relationship to the experimenter. Regardless, Skinner's notion of
"operant" SETS of OUTPUTS, each of which result in the same OUTCOME, was a
significant step toward replacing specification of outputs with control of
perceptions.

As ever,

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: TBOURBON@UTMBEACH.BITNET (Tom Bourbon)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: RE: neurosci, bye
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:18:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET"
Original_cc:  TBOURBON

Mark,
   By all means, let's keep up the discussion!  Not so I can "prove you
are wrong," but because it is on a topic not often aired in neuroscience.
When I posted that I was happy you had raised the topic, it was for just
that reason.
   Enjoy the holidays.  See you in January.
   Tom Bourbon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: MAILER%"csg-l@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:08:10 -0600
From:         Tom Bourbon <TBOURBON@BEACH.UTMB.EDU>
Subject:      Apologies

From: Tom Bourbon (921228  15:50  CST)

     This is a public apology to Martin Taylor and to everyone else
on CSG-L.  A short time ago I logged on to post a direct note,
following up on another I had sent early this morning.  I learned
that the earlier private post was not so private after all.  I
apologize to all of you, but most of all to Martin.
     In the direct post I intended to send this afternoon, I was
going to comment on the quality of the mail that had accumulated
during the holiday.  I was especially impressed by the richness and
depth added to discussions of PCT by the presence on CSG-L of so
many different perspectives that were not included at the start.
In the holiday mail, those "new" perspectives were represented well
by Oded, Eileen, and Martin.  From time to time, when someone comes
in with a different interest in PCT there is smoke and fire, at
least for a while, but the result is a deeper discussion on the
phenomenon of control and on PCT.
     Those were ideas I intended to explore in a post.  But my
earlier flippant and hurtful post did more to damage the process I
wanted to praise than I care to imagine.

With apologies to all,

Tom Bourbon                             e-mail:
Magnetoencephalography Laboratory       TBOURBON@UTMBEACH.BITNET
Division of Neurosurgery, E-17          TBOURBON@BEACH.UTMB.EDU
University of Texas Medical Branch      PHONE  (409) 763-6325
Galveston, TX 77550  USA                FAX    (409) 762-9961
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU