An apology

[Martin Taylor 2014.01.02.10.29]

[Martin Taylor 2014.01.02.01.02]

  Exactly my point.

I suggest you have a sleep and when you mind is fresh, reconsider
what you wrote.
Martin
I have had a sleep and am reconsidering what I wrote, and why I
wrote it.

When I wrote my original comment, quote at the top of this message,

I had thought it more probable than not that Rick had had what I
call a “mental typo” when he said “that the phenomenon to be
explained in behavioral research is
control”. Control is obviously explained in circuit theory, not in
behavioural research. So I was astonished by Rick’s response, and
especially annoyed by his But then you don’t seem to think control
is a fact (phenomenon)", which he has known for 20 years to be
untrue.

In my mind I added to this my frustration with Rick's various

comments on stability, and especially the fact that I did not get
the response “Thanks for the explanation” I had hoped for (though
perhaps not expected) after my tutorial explaining the concept in
dynamics. The result was an unnecessarily snarky message written
just as I was going to be last night.

For the snarkiness, I apologise. For being annoyed by Rick's

unwarranted words, I do not.

Martin
···

[From Rick Marken (2014.01.01.2145)]

                Martin Taylor

(2014.01.01.23.48)–

                              MT: I think you have it precisely

backwards… PCT doesn’t explain
control. It uses control to explain
other things.

RM: What other things

                MT: Life, generally. For a few specific examples:

why we eat, how we talk, how we walk, how trees deal
with parasites or lost branches, what we choose to
study, how we treat other people, why dogs live with
humans and wolves don’t, how communities evolve, why
we accept orders from some people and not others

          RM: I think all of these "things" can be shown to be

examples of control, per the definition of control on p. 1
in LCS III: Acting to bring something to a specified
condition, and then maintaining it close to that condition
even if unpredictable external forces and changes in
environmental properties tend to alter it.

          But then you don't seem to think

control is a fact (phenomenon). So according to you this
definition of “control” is the description of a process
that explains the “things” you mention above ( why we eat,
how we talk, etc). So what are these “things” that are
explained by control? What, for example, is talking? Is it
just a behavior that is emitted like light from a light
bulb?