[From Bruce Abbott (2016.07.06.1015 EDT)]
Fred Nickols (2016.07.05.1618 ET) –
FN: The comments regarding my “Control of Performance” posting prompt a different line of discussion.
FN: This morning, I brewed a pot of coffee, poured a cup and sat down in the living room, placing the cup of coffee on a table next to my chair. Shortly afterward, I picked up the cup of coffee, raised it to my lips and took a sip.
FN: I am perfectly happy and willing to say that I controlled the movement of the coffee cup from the table top to my lips. I am also perfectly willing and happy to say that I did so as a consequence of perceiving the movement of the cup from the table to my lips and its touch on my lips which signaled its arrival there. I am also happy to say that I controlled my perception of said movement. I’m also happy to say that I controlled taking a sip of coffee. Lastly, I’m happy to say that I controlled my coffee-drinking performance.
FN: My understanding of the word “control” as a verb – in PCT and in my fire control days – is that it means to make something line up with the way you want or intend for it to be. The fact that all I know of the world I know by way of my perceptions doesn’t change that one whit.
FN: Where am I going astray?
BA: Given your intended audience, I would say you are not going astray at all. But your scenario does raise issues that are not adequately addressed by PCT. First, there is no “you” in PCT that is doing the wanting or intending. There are just control systems working to correct errors in their controlled perceptions. In the PCT hierarchy, the sequence of perceptions to be controlled is orchestrated at the program level, with implied branches should one means or another be unavailable under the circumstances or fail to bring about a given perceived state in the sequence. But supposedly programs are created by the reorganizing system, and it is hard to imagine how the slow and iffy process of reorganization might bring about the particular program-level control system in your example. This is because much of what needs to be done is happenstance. (For example, what if the cup were too far away for you to reach without getting up from your chair and moving closer to the table?)
BA: It seems to be that this is where certain cognitive processes come in that are not explicitly modeled in PCT. Although we may or may not be consciously aware of those processes, it would seem that some part of our brain is perceiving the situation, evaluating the options, and making decisions about a course of action, all done “on the fly” as the situation dictates. The flexibility required in most situations would not be available if we had to rely solely on pre-organized program-level control systems.
BA: Or so I claim.
Bruce
P.S. I’m going on vacation today so I will not be available for some time to debate this issue.