# Answering Questions, Suggestions for Bill

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/answering-questions-suggestions-for-bill/1151>\
**Category:** CSG1996\
**Created:** [October 27, 1996, 8:47pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/answering-questions-suggestions-for-bill/1151 "1996-10-27T20:47:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken)\
**Post date:** [October 27, 1996, 8:47pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/answering-questions-suggestions-for-bill/1151/1 "1996-10-27T20:47:10Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (961027.1245)]

I just thought of something else that I should have mentioned in response to  
the following from Bill Benzon:

> And I am stunned that you really seem to think that PCT has an answer for  
> everything

One reason it is hard to get behavioral scientists interested in PCT is  
because the most important questions it answers are the ones that are never  
asked. For example, behavioral scientists never ask about one of greatest  
of all mysteries of behavior: how are organisms able to produce consistent  
results in an inconsistent environment? How, for example, does a person  
consistently take sips of tea despite environmental inconsistencies  
(changes in the amount of tea in the cup, the location of the cup relative  
to the hand, etc) that should prevent such consistency?

The questions behavioral scientists ask about behavior assume that the  
question "What is behavior?" has already been answered. Behavioral (and  
life) scientists assume that behavior (like taking a sip of tea) is  
\_output\_ generated by the nervous system. That is why behavioral  
scientists ask questions about the \_causes\_ of behaviors -- as in the  
recent post asking for help with research on the "causes of  
procrastination" (which received a wonderful reply from Bill Spokes).  
The assumption being made in that research (as in virtually all conventional  
behavioral science research) is that behaviors (like procrastination)  
are \_outputs\_ (or delay of output in the case of procrastination) that  
are \_caused\_ by something, like one's mood or temperment. This is why  
we say that the "input-output" model is the basis of conventional  
behavioral research; behavior is assumed to be an output and the goal  
of research is to find the inputs (including internal bodily states)  
that cause it.

The PCT answer to the question "What is behavior?" is "Behavior is  
controlled perception". So from a PCT perspective, a question like  
"Does mood cause procrastination?" makes no sense. The more appropriate  
question would be "what perceptual variables are being controlled when  
we see the behavior that we call "procrastination".

Bill Powers (961025.0830 MDT) --

> Somehow I find myself embroiled with a community of philosophers, with  
> 200K of philosophical musings in the past two days to contend with.  
> That's not what I want to be doing with the rest of my life. I'm going  
> to have to give some serious thought to what I do want to be doing;  
> this, clearly, isn't it. Suggestions from PCTers welcome.

Just keep doing what you've been doing; posting your wonderful musings  
(I treasure every one, if that makes any difference) and helping people  
like Bruce Abbott and myself do research on PCT. Be kind (but strict) with  
the philosophers; just remember they know not what they do;-)

Best

Rick