MarkGeenomad wrote: Vince. I'm not sure we are destined to reach common ground on this - for all sorts of reasons. Partly it depends on whether ones approach to "feeling" and "movement" is defined, fundamentally, by experience or by analysis. I put those in opposing and absolutist terms to make a point in a way that might make sense to you. I also know that the relationship can be framed variously and quite differently. Things is we come from quite different frames of reference and my attempt to bridge that with reference to aircraft controls seems to have been only partially successful. So, ok, for you a cardboard box with a label would do as well. For me it doesn't - neither conceptually nor referentially.
Whatever the complexities of modelling it might be, from my reading about the sensorimotor system it is not a mystery and what I understand of it fits with my own experience as it does with others, my ex ballerina partner included. I hasten to add my reading has not been exhaustive and I intend to do more of it.
Cheers
Mark
My experience is shaped by analysis and test, it's what I used to do for a living. You tried to frame your concept of feel by using aircraft controls and I showed you a development Gripen in pilot induced oscillation. It's not a one off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoreBssjb6I
The crash report made the following deduction from the telemetry (PIO = Pilot Induced Oscillation):
I see something very similar when I give some people one of my really bendy rods. Until recently, I was convinced I couldn't watch my back loop because it threw out my tracking. Mark S changed my stance but my casting didn't improve much until he pointed out that I was looking where the loop was going to be next, not where it was. I had been relying entirely on "feel" through my hand for about 25 years, so my timing was off and my back cast was shite. I was trying to chase the feel and hitting too hard to get it.Analysis of the early part of the accident PIO showed the pilot stick input was lagging pitch rate by 0.15 sec, the stabilator lagging the stick by 0.05 sec., and the pitch rate lagging the stabilator by 0.35 sec., for a total of 0.55 sec. lag in the pilot control loop. The period of oscillation was twice that -- 1.1 sec -- meaning that the lag was 180 deg. out of phase, making the aircraft "extremely susceptible to a PIO,"
On the old thread that Bernd linked to earlier in this thread, Alejandro makes a very important point that the system is rod, line and caster. With reference to your analogy about aircraft, feel isn't only about the artificial feel devices attached to the stick, there is a feedback loop through the aircrafts control systems through the air with it's variables and the eyes, ears and body of the pilot. The Gripen and F-22 shows that the system can still be wrong with a development budget of millions. Training increases the bandwidth of pilots and casters capabilities but some of it is hard wired.
Taking it back to the casting, the strength of our grip and the fatness of our hands will mean that you and I feel different things with the same kit in the same atmospheric conditions. We will have differing abilities to accurately control our movement based upon our physiology and reactions, not to mention the grey squidgy stuff between our ears. You may not find the sensrimotor system a mystery but the interactions of the motor system, primary motor cortex, premotor cortex, supplementary motor Area, cingulate motor areas, subcortical motor systems, somatosensory system, spinal cord and the descending motor tracts is way beyond my pay grade but I admire you for trying
Regards
Vince
Right hemisphere dominance pour moi. Left for Vince I expect.
