HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: marken@aero.org (Richard Marken)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Re: language
Date: 5 Nov 1992 22:11:44 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

[From Rick Marken (921105.1400)]

In article <92Nov5.124237pst.29192@hmmm.parc.xerox.com> Penni Sibun <sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM> writes:
>(penni sibun 921105.1300)
>
>   [From Rick Marken (921104.1400)]
>
>   penni sibun (921103.1600) on the relation between her model and pct model
>
>   >i think the major difficulty in mapping bet. yr model and mine is the
>   >``intended meaning'' part.
>
>   I agree -- intentions (reference signals) ARE the ONE BIG difference
>   between PCT and ALL other models of living systems.
>
>nonsense.  intentions are one of the many banes of traditional ai.

Well, maybe you are right. They do talk about intentions a lot.
My impression is that in most cases the intention is modelled as a
command to produce action rather than as a specification for perception.
But I'm sure that my impression is wrong (from your point of view) --
perhaps you could describe such an ai model.


>re: below.  i can't make much sense of yr cryptic equations.  i don't
>think you answered my question.  i didn't ask whether you thought
>there were hidden loops in my model.  i asked how you could make a pct
>model that accounted for the same phenomena.  obviously, i believe
>that the phenomena my model captures are important.  i'd like to see
>how you think pct could account for the same process.  could you
>please try again?

Ok. This is a very fair question. Perhaps you could describe the
phenomenon that your model "captures". Maybe give some quatitative
data on the phenomenon. From your discussion with Avery it sounds like
your model (Salex, right?) produces sentences that describe scenes.
Some of the descriptions are based on inferences derived from the
scene but not explicitly "stated" -- these are verbally described
scenes, right. I think you already have a discreet PCT model -- which
is fine. The references are each of the "descriptions" that should be
produced. The perceptions are logical variables -- either they are
true of false. The references for each variable is set at true. Then
you go through you inference engine and parser and produce states
of those variables. A higher order system is looking for all the
reference perceptions to be set to true -- then you are done. So you
probably already have a control model -- controlling logical variables.

But I think it would be good to see the data on the phenomenon before
judging the value of the model -- control model or not.

Best

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
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:37:27 -0700
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      primer program from Zocher

[From Bill Powers (921111.1230)]

Wolfgang Zocher (921111) --

RE: primer for computer modelers

Thanks for the Pascal version, Wolfgang. I will incorporate it, with
credit. It runs fine under Turbo Pascal -- anybody else out there who
can test these programs to make sure they work on your system?

I would welcome the efforts of anyone who would like to take my rather
verbose version of the writeup and make it shorter and better organized.

Also, if someone wants to make the program more user-friendly (but still
short), feel free: I'll check it out and revise the Primer accordingly.
I can run C, Pascal, and Qbasic programs.
---------------------------------------
You ask why there shouldn't be a second integrator. This should go into
the Primer. The best way to see why not is to put a second integrator
into the program.

Try this: in place of

       qi := kf*qo + kd*qd;

introduce a dummy variable x, and write

      x := x + kf*qo;
      qi := x + kf*qd;

You'll have to declare x and initialize it to 0. The variable x
represents the contribution of the output via the feedback function to
the state of the input quantity. The feedback function is now an
integrator.

How about trying this, and writing back to tell the folks what happened?

(C version: same change, but use = instead of :=).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,

Bill P.
From: 0005096370@MCIMAIL.COM (Henry James Bicycles Inc)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Elections
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:33:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

[From Hank Folson (921108)]

I am fascinated by the opportunity to compare & contrast S-R (Stimulus-
Response) and PCT interpretations of the elections. One example: Ross Perot
spends $60,000,000 on his campaign and gets 19% of the vote. S-R
interpretation (taken from the news media): PerotUs campaign/money/ads
"stimulated" one in 5 voters to "respond" with Perot votes. PCT
interpretation: 1 in 5 voters had large error signals with Republicans/Bush
and Democrats/Clinton. PerotUs personality/policies/ads matched their
reference levels better so they voted for Perot.

How will the political parties, the media, the large corporations interpret
the meaning of this vote? It seems to me that if they accept the S-R view,
they will discount the meaning of the Perot vote. They will feel that the
problem is simply one person, Perot,"stimulating " those voters. If they
don't like what happened,they will concentrate on doing something to
counteract Perot's future  "stimulations". They will consider those who
voted only in terms of their responses to future stimulations. If they take
the PCT view that these voters were controlling to reduce error signals,
they will look at Perot only in terms of how his campaign was perceived by
these voters. The actions of the politicians, media and corporations will be
different depending on which philosophy they follow, and their success in
achieving what they want will be different, too!

Do any other examples of different S-R vs. PCT interpretations and
consequences come to mind?

There was some prediction of our political future in earlier posts. How can
we begin to make any predictions unless we have some awareness of the
settings of the reference levels of the higher levels of our politicians?

Hank Folson (non-voting Resident Alien)

Hank Folson, Henry James Bicycles, Inc.
704 Elvira Avenue, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
310-540-1552 (Day & Evening) MCI MAIL: 509-6370 Internet: 5096370@MCIMAIL.COM
From: JIXUANHU@GWUVM.GWU.EDU (Jixuan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Re: Primer for modelers: draft
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:04:32 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
              9 Nov 1992 10:25:31 -0700 from <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>

Hi everybody, I have been listening to your PCT list for a week.  I am a Ph.D.
candidate majored in Cybernetics and System Theory at George Washington Univers
ity.  I came from China to learn from you.  So far my impression of PCT is that
 it is very close to the idea of Second Order Cybernetics, which has been devel
oped after 1970s by a group of cyberneticians hosted in American Society of Cyb
ernetics.  Are you guys fimilar with this area?  If yes, what are your comments
, if not, I will be glad to answer you questions regarding to SOC.  The leading
 scientists in SOC are Heinz von Foerster, Humberto Maturana, Gordon Pask, and
Ernst von Glasersfeld.  Other active figures include: Stafford Beer, Stuart Ump
leby, George Klir and Klaus Krippendorff.  Cybernetics itself is concerned with
 communication and CONTROL in complex systems, and SECOND ORDER means the syste
m being studied includes the observer, (and his PERCEPTIONS,) thus I say that
PCT is close to SOC.  Could you please offer me some substantial content, not
just promotional materials, about PCT, so that I can compare them in detail?  I
 would like to participate your discussion as a cross-disciplinary collaborator
 rather than a buyer or a user.  It is possible that PCT will benefit from othe
r fields like SOC and vice versa.  Thank you and best wishes. Jixuan HU
<jixuanhu@gwuvm.bitnet OR jixuanhu@gwuvm.gwu.edu>
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 10:56:50 PST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:56:50 PST
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      PCT

[From Rick Marken (921110.1100)

John Gabriel (921110?)

>The distance between "your" perception and "mine" is a Hamming
>distance(*),

>In this framework, the PCT model has an error signal that is the
>weighted Hamming distance

I think you're talking metaphor, not model. What carries the error
signal representing the distance between your perception and mine?

Jixuan

>  So far my impression of PCT is that
> it is very close to the idea of Second Order Cybernetics

Keep listening; we will do our best to correct that impression.

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, 13 Nov 1992 11:53:07 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: o tell me where is meaning bred

The distances are such that they can hop it with no serious problems,
I think.

Surpised not to have heard much for forsell & folson -- maybe my little blasts
are having some effect.  Almost reach the flame level today!
From: marken@aero.org (Richard Marken)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Re: dear Rick
Date: 6 Nov 1992 15:55:14 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

[From Rick Marken (921106.0800)]

In article <921106.081705.CST.N336BZ@TAMVM1> MLee <N336BZ@TAMVM1.BITNET> writes:
>I am just a lowly grad student who has just signed-on to this list
>primarily as an observer, but in reply to Rick Marken's last post
>re: presidential control systems:
>
>                          DITTO
>
>
>Regards,
>
>M. Lee

Thanks. You made my morning.
 
You are most wise and most welcome to the list. 

How about a quick autobio and/or a comment about what
got you onto csg-l?

Best

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:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:00:56 CST
From:         "(John Gabriel)" <gabriel@EID.ANL.GOV>
Subject: Re: Hamming it up

Thankyou for your useful comments. Here are my best attempts at answers.

Last first - I had an assumed context, if you like, the relation between
a decision maker setting policy, and their staff. Problem - how to best
support the decision maker. The staff want to get the best information
to the decision maker as soon as possible. If the staff are good
collectors, then this comes down to making sure staff and decision maker
are singing from the same sheet of music (same Aristotelian Propositions)
and optimising channel bandwidth - there are some things rather like
maximum power transfer and impedance matching, but a bit beyond what
seems to be in the literature. In these circumstances staff will need
to control for best understanding by decision maker, and to flag any new
Aristotelian Propositions not yet in the decision maker's reference set,
and develop Hamming distance like associations with things already known
to decision maker. Essentially the game of 20 questions (20 bits
can distinguish between elements of a quite large ensemble).

It's slipped my mind what the other two questions were, and being logged
in on a dumb terminal I can't open a window to reread yr. mail. Can I
finish my reply when I come back from out of town. Early next week I
hope.

I didn't intend to suggest that people ALWAYS control for mutual
understanding. At times deception is wanted - see for example WWII
where it was worth many British and American lives to deceive about
the place of landings on D-day.

But if speech is going on in order to communicate, then I think people
DO control for understanding, and that was the assumed context of my
reply to Penni. And Penni's statements from the K-B seem to me first
cousins of Aristotelian propositions. And the distance between beliefs
and experience does seem to me to be a Hamming distance, probably with
weights - if you have just arrived in a strange town, you are probably
more concerned about finding your hotel than the dairy.

Sorry - there's the 'phone. Have to go. Will continue later.

	John 921110 23:01 CST
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 09:51:28 EST
From:         Avery Andrews <andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: consensual reality, negative evidence, parry/lord

[Avery Andrews (921112.951)]
(Bruce Nevin (Thu 921112 07:25:24))

On membership, etc.  Yes, I agree, & would only add that there's sometimes
more than in-groupiness involved in what concepts are constructed
consensually.  E.g. if a bunch of people have a suboptimal concept of
plutonium they have a good chance of winding up prematurely dead.

Re also you remarks on negative evidence, etc.  I agree that I overstated
things a bit in saying that my story was the alternative to GB, but it
does seem to me as a parent that neither I nor my wife spent much time
correcting syntax and subcategorization errors - what stands out is the
corrections of morphology, and some usage issues, such as the much/many
distinction.

Parry/Lord aren't exactly passee, but people don't buy everything they
said anymore.  In particular, the formula system, tho obviously
present, is probably not as pervasive as they thought it was, and
it is also not necessary to believe that the stuff was all made up
extempore on the spot - oral traditions vary greatly in the extent
to which things are rehearsed or composed beforehand, it it is perfectly
possible that the bards did quite a lot of composition and rehearsal
(in their heads, of course) when they weren't performing.  & of course
preclassical Greece wasn't necessarily like the Balkans in the 20's.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
From: URROBERT@ECNUXA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Re: Dropping Babies
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:47:20 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
              Nov

[From Dick Robertson 921105]
Gary, i got this example from a real event.  A long time ago someone was telling
m (sorry this damn reply program puts in carriage retunrs on its own initiative)
What do the rest of you think in answer to Gary's question?
> On another note- I still aim to reply to Rick Marken from a week or two back,
Cheers to all, Dick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:49:48 CST
From:         Richard Robertson <urrobert@UXA.ECN.BGU.EDU>
Subject:      Re:dropping babies second try

[From Dick Robertson 921110 repeat of 921105]
Thanks to Gary and Bill for clarifying what happened with my last post.  I
often try to use this automatic reply program when I'm in a hurry, because me
teaching load is so heavy this term that I hate to take the time to write and
then download.  But I'm out of here next May (Yippee) and hope to have more
time to actually keep up with all these great new developments.
Anyhow - What I was saying is that I got the baby-dropping example (actually it
was for a test on chapter 5 in the text book) from a real event.  Many years
ago someone was telling a group of us friends how a relative of theirs got her
face all skinned.  She had been carrying her baby over some ice and slipped,and
fell right on her face while holding the bably up out of the way.  I had spec
ulated that it was not a violation of reaction times being faster at lower lev-
els but rather, that she already knew there was ice when she started out and
hence some higher level (principle prabably?) had set some command to the on-
going program like, "Don't drop the kid no matter what."  Thus, I assumed, the
lower orders that would be involved in flinging out one's arms when losing ones
balance were "essentially locked" by the commands filtering down from the prog-
ram.  I didn't think that part of my speculations through very deeply to see
if that was the best explanation, since I have seen other episodes of similar
happenings, I believed that I had observed other instances of lower order con-
trols being "locked," like that.  I hope Bill will comment on whether there is
a fuller explanation.
--New topic -- When I leave next spring our department will be looking for a
replacement (maybe 3 because we haven't filled several past vacancies) and if
anybody know of a new HPCT-wise PH D in perception/learning, clinical or neuro-
psych who is looking for a teaching post in a mainly undergraduate program--
please send'm this way.  It would be great to think that the two rival intro-
general psych courses here (one traditional versus one fully PCT) would be con-
tinued.
Best Dick Robertson
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:58:33 -0400
From:         "(Bill Silvert)" <bill@BIOME.BIO.NS.CA>
Subject:      Promoting PCT (posting to biome)

[Bill Silvert 921110]

Last week Dag Forssell wrote:

>[From Dag Forssell (921102.1700)]
>
>A disk with updated CSGINTRO.DOC will be postmarked tomorrow for Gary Cziko
>and Bill Silvert. Gary will put it on the net and Bill make it available on
>the server. Pat and Greg have succesfully (I could use it) created an ASCII
>file, uud.scr, which Bill will also put on the server. This allows MCI mail
>(and Bitnet?) netters with DOS machines to get the binary files.
>Instructions in CSGINTRO.DOC. Also, the marken.doc file will be updated,
>complete with ASCII figures. Instructions on how to subscribe to CSG-L have
>been added. Download the CSGINTRO.DOC and pass it around to friends.

The disk arrived and the contents have been put in pub/csg/documents/forssell.
I decided to keep them altogether without editing.  Here is the readme file:

[From Dag Forssell (921102)]

Gary and Bill:

Here are four files for the server:

           csgintro.doc          Formerly Starter document
           uud.scr
           rubberbd.txt
           marken.doc

Bill: As shown in the csgintro.doc, I propose you place and comment on
uud.scr as shown:
-----------------------------------------------
programs/source:
uud.scr         54371  ASCII. Compile uud.exe w/ DOS debug. Directions @ end.
--------------------------------------------------

In my comment on the net about showing ASCII vs Binary, I anticipated that
it would be easy to show ASCII in the comment section as shown here. It is
not a big deal, of course.

You asked why not electronic mail. $ is the answer. MCI mail postage on the
content of this disk (130 kb) would run easily $10 to each of you. It is
priced by the kilobyte for large messages.

I have checked uud.scr with dem1a.exe. My experiences are reflected in the
text.

While there are only a handful of CSGnetters on MCI mail or ATT mail (Ray
Jackson) at present, I will do my best to distribute a "demodisk" (available
in perhaps a week)  to industry. CSGINTRO.DOC will be included. This is one
reason for me to spell out how to subscribe and how to access Bill's server.
Hopefully, others will find it convenient to pass around copies also.

marken.doc is updated and includes illustrations. Please substitute.
rubberbd.txt is self-explanatory. Minimal comment up to you.
csgintro.doc likewise.

dem1a.exe currently on the server gives Bill Powers address in Northbrook
Illinois. I will mail you an update when I have mastered the archive process
so Durango, Colorado is spelled out. I will provide update for dem2a.exe as
well. I'll need a week.

Gary:

csgintro.doc should do well for new subscribers and for monthly posting by
you.

Best, Dag
--
Bill Silvert at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography
P. O. Box 1006, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CANADA B2Y 4A2
InterNet Address: bill@biome.bio.ns.ca
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: andaling@FAC.ANU.EDU.AU ((Avery Andrews))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: language, error signals, equilibrium
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:48:37 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


 [Avery Andrews 921106.1348]

Aside from the one Martin Taylor pointed, out, another difference
between language production and ordinary control situations stems
from the discreteness inherent in language.  One can turn, say,
Salix, into an environmentally closed loop system by marking bits
of the knowledge base as said when they are heard and understood
as said by the parsing system (not part of Salix at this point,
but anybody can write a parser these days).

But then the discrete nature of the KB has an interesting consequence.
The error signal that drives production is the difference between what
is to be said and what has been said.  But (a) once something has been
said it stays said (b) you can, in many cases, say it all.  So rather
than having the typical case be an equilibrium state where the error
signal is just enough to maintain the controlled quantity next to
the reference level, which is thought of as constant, the typical
case is that the `reference level' changes (e.g. some stuff becomes
wanted to be said), then out comes behavior to get it said, and then
activity stops (conversations really do just grind to a halt sometimes).
E.g. the whole thing is really much more like an S-R situation, in
spite of not really being one.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
io
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: csg-l@uiucvmd.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"csg-l@uiucvmd.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:08:30 -0400
From:         8913517@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA
Subject:      subscribe

csg-l-request john van loon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CSG-L@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:15:53 -0600
From:         Z_KURTZERML@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU
Subject:      LEVELS

FROM I.N.KURTZER 921113.1200

 to powers,bourbon,hershberger, and other interested parties

i read n article recently where the experimenters "raised kittens in a
enviroment illuminated by a strobe light, which flashed eight times a
second for ten microseconds each..." the result was that the kittens'
neurons that respond to shapes did, but the neurons that respond to
motion did not! well, i interpreted this as a verification of a
configuration level and a transition level. and since the cat coould detect
configurations but could not detect transitions would that put transitions
higher in the hiearchy than configurations?  neat experiment, needs
replication!!

Cynader,M.,&Chernenko,G.(1976).
   Abolition of direction selectivity
   in the visual cortex of the cat.
   SCIENCE,193,503-505.(8)


in a hurry, bye

i.n.kurtzer

oh yeah, what with all these latin quotes?a new rage sweeping the nation
or just bored academians?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU