Latest discussions in the Method of Levels Section in Discourse
- by @rsmarken Richard Markenbnhpct: rsmarken: I think it is misleading to view the parallelism within a control loop – as in the spinal reflex – as being an exact parallel to the collective effects of individual controllers socially. You’re mixing two levels of observation. Try seeing it from the point of view of the control systems involved in […]
- by @bnhpct Bruce E. Nevinrsmarken: bnhpct: It is unfortunate that Bill reverted to all-or-none switches in Chapter 15. Why? It seems to explain some apparently binary phenomena Well, yes, the attribute is misplaced. Bill had his good explanatory reasons in that context. What is unfortunate is the occasional misinterpretation by students taking the diagrammatic conventions too literally. rsmarken: I […]
- by @rsmarken Richard Markenbnhpct: An important point is that ‘neural currents’ are variables, not binary switches (“All or none or some”). Electrical currents are also variables. But you can organize them into circuits that act as switches (the flip flops you mention, for example). bnhpct: It is unfortunate that Bill reverted to all-or-none switches in Chapter 15. Why? […]
- by @bnhpct Bruce E. NevinYes, Ted Cloak has been engaged with PCT for many years. Here’s his Researchgate home. Eetu Pikkarainen has a particular interest in a control-theoretic understanding of how education works (or not). P0ck: Moreover, in fields like in the sciences, the student learn to control hiser perception with feedbacks from his instruments and “reality” (hopefully. So […]
- by @bnhpct Bruce E. NevinYes, this is a good corrective to the schematic simplifications of fig. 15.3 in B:CP. An important point is that ‘neural currents’ are variables, not binary switches (“All or none or some”). A flip-flop or polyflop structure produces a categorial choice (described by a cusp catastrophe). It is unfortunate that Bill reverted to all-or-none switches […]