Re: PCP and movements

James Mancuso (mancusoj@capital.net)
Wed, 20 Nov 1996 17:49:55 -0500

mmascolo@merrimack.edu wrote:
>
> Jim Mancuso writes:
>
> > This idea, so far as PCP is concerned, relates to the core ideas
> >one uses when speaking of MEMORY PROCESSES. What is stored for use by a
> >system of constructs. I have proposed that we should think of storage
> >in terms of TWO POLED CONSTRUCTS. Thus, each anticipatory construction
> >-- whether it be a motor movement by which we anticipate a valid body
> >position, position of a putative object in space, or our self as text
> >for another to process -- represents a NEW constructions. That is,
> >constructions should not be taken as the unit of storage.
> > I have come to believe that this is a central issue in working
> >with PCP.
>
> I have been thinking about the issue of what is "stored" in "memory"
> recently. I would ask Jim to elaborate further on just what he means when
> he says that a "two poled construct" is stored. In what form is the
> construct represented? How is it stored?
>
> I say this because I would like to evaluate the extent to which Jim's
> ideas are consistent with the following line of thinking: The issue of
> "storage" is a very problematic one. When we construct a reprsentation,
> image, idea, concept, etc, the represetntation is just that -- a
> construction. The representation is a product of constructive -activity-
> and thus is not simply "retrieved." The best treatments that I can think
> of that pertain to the issue of storage comes from connectionist and
> neural network thinking. The idea would be that what is "stored" is not
> a representation, a concept, or even a "construct." Rather, "knowledge" is
> distributed throughout a neural network, and is not stored in any one place
> . When we construct a representation or construct, we put together on-line
> knowledge elements that are distributed throughout a neural network. As
> such, we construct representations differently each time they are invoked.
>
> As such, knowledge isn't stored intact. Rather, the building blocks
> for creating knowledge is "stored", and we don't simply retrieve, we
> reconstruct in action. I would think that this is compatible with Jim's
> line of thinking....
>
> Best,
> Mike Mascolo

Michael and other PCP Networkers:

I would have no trouble with your comments on storage, memory,
and reconstruction. Unfortunately, I haven't done much reading in the
area of neuroscience -- but your brief representation of a possible
position from that area would set me to looking further into that work
for other formulations.

I can't immediately respond to the idea of "what is stored"
after making my claim that "constructs are stored." I simply state my
proposition, "two-poled constructs are stored." To back this claim, I
would go to all the work related to the Dichotomy Corollary, Osgood's
"old" formulations about "universal judgment scales" -- which he assumes
to be two-poled [and, I think, he provided neat validational studies
that [I think] show this. Additionally, I don't think that all those
philosophers who were enamored of the idea of "dialectic," were off on a
total wild goose chase.
So, I think, we can build a case for the idea that somehow, two
poled constructs are stored.

The issue here: Can we use the same ideas for speaking of motor
movements. I think so. I think that the propensity to think of motor
movements as "non-cognitive" has prejudices us from looking at a motor
movement as a RE-construction, created each time that we run off the
sequence -- Thus, each being "novel," "adaptable to the constantly
changing context," and eventually reconstructed because they prove to be
"fitting."

Okay -- Sorry I can't come up with a better way to speak of the
anatomical, physiological, neurological aspects of it all -- but I like
to quote Neisser -- "Psychology is not something we do until the
physiologists take over."

Response???

Jim Mancuso

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%