[from Mary Powers (970731)]
Bruce:
I think the reason for much misunderstanding is that you have not been at
all clear about when you are referring to Aplysia-the-individual-organism
and Aplysia-the-species. I was always referring to an individual, but you
apparently were not. I have been saying that each individual Aplysia
(Aplysium?) is a purposive system. It now turns out that when you say
Aplysia has no purpose you are talking about the species. I can agree with
that because I believe that groups of organisms are not purposive even
though the individuals in the group are.
Bruce, Rick, etc:
To me the problem with comparing PCT to other theories - such as Darwinian
evolution, operant reinforcement, self-motivation theory, goal-seeking
theory, etc., etc., is that those theories describe what seems to be
happening, but none of them have a clue as to how it actually _works_. PCT,
on the other hand, proposes an organization, a mechanism, by which these
processes can be carried out. It is not in competition with any of them -
it is an entirely different order of thinking - it goes inside the black box
and describes what has to be there for these phenomena to exist. I think
that is the fundamental fact about control theory. I think it is a
secondary fact, although very important, that the _way_ control systems work
necessarily involves the control of perception by varying behavior.
Mary P.
[From Rick Marken (970801.1450)]
Mary Powers (970731) --
To me the problem with comparing PCT to other theories...is that
those theories describe what seems to be happening, but none of
them have a clue as to how it actually _works_.
I think this is sometimes the case. But more often then not these
other theories _do_ try to explain how "it" (behavior, evolution)
works. I think the explanations provided by these thories fall
into one of two general classes: _causal_ (which includes S-R,
cognitive, and equilibrium theories) and _sieve_ (reinforcement,
natural selection). All these explanations are characterized by
the denial of internal purposes to living systems.
The problem with these theories is that, when turned into
working models, they _don't work_ (they don't explain what their
advocates want to explain). When _we_ show that this is the case
we are told that we have developed "straw man" versions of these
theories. In some cases the advocates of these theories will
build control system models that _do_ work and say "this is
how the theory -- S-R or cognitive or reinforcement theory--
actually works". They then proceed to ignore the essential
aspects (notably controlled variables) of their control model,
which they now dub "S-R" or "cognitive" or "reinforcement"
theory. This, my darling Mary, is what rattles my cage;-)
It is not in competition with any of them - it is an entirely
different order of thinking - it goes inside the black box
and describes what has to be there for these phenomena to exist.
I disagree. Control theory _is_ in competition with these theories
and the advocates of these theories know it. There are careers
and even whole professions at stake. There is a big difference
between a theory that says a person behaves in a particular way
in order to achieve a purpose and one that says a person behaves
in a particular way because that behavior made it through an
environmental sieve. It is a difference that makes a difference --
in terms of the kind of research you do and in terms of how you
deal with human problems.
Love and joy --
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken