Behav. illusions

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-03-09_10:34:24 UTC]

I think I have conceptual problems in understanding the concept of "behavioral illusion" and its use. I start by stating how I understand it at the moment. Please correct.

Say, a person is walking on the field with a big brush. Every now and then she is brushing the ground with that brush. We can see that she brushes fallen leaves away from the pathway. We infer that she controls for clean pathway, or for "no fallen leaves in pathway". (We could have done another inference, to which I will return.) Now we see that she suddenly starts to use the brush in a new way and with much more power. We ask what happened. We can sharpen our question and ask what went to her. Then we can infer that she got mad with endless leaves. Or we can take a closer look and infer that there is now a different kind of a leaf which is fixed to the pathway surface. So nothing went to her, she just continues what she was doing, but the situation requires different behavior for that. If in this situation we had stuck to the inference that something went to her, that would have been a "behavioral illusion", right? We thought that the happening, the change of her behavior tells or signals something about her but it was nothing in her but only a change in the environment - a change in the feedback function.

But perhaps, someone had given her that brush and asked her to bring it quick to an other end of the field. But during the walk she perceived those leaves and started to brush them away. In this situation we could have a asked what happened, what went to her. We could infer that the leaves on the pathway is a stimulus which causes the brushing reaction in her. Is this (behavioristic) inference a kind of an inverted behavioral illusion, or is it just a "normal" behavioral illusion? In reality she was already controlling for cleanness of the pathway, and the leaves were just disturbances for her perception. The change in her behavior does not tell or signal (necessarily) anything about changes in her, but changes in the environment, but now not in a feedback function but in the disturbance.

What is the difference between the first and latter illusion? The change from loose to fixed leaves is a change of disturbance as much as a change of feedback function?

After this my understanding is that we can first fall in a "behavioristic illusion" if we think that environment somehow linearly causes the behavior of an organism when we should think that the organism is already controlling something and the environmental change only changes the context of the action of the organism. Then later after that correction we can fall in a "behavioral illusion" if we think in an other way round that the change in the behavior of the controlling organism is caused by changes inside the organism when it in reality is caused only by the changes in the environment?

(If I think the two alternative rival worldviews of psychology, behaviorism and cognitivism, the latter one could be called "cognitivist illusion"?)

In both of these cases the term "illusion" in problematic because they are rather inferential errors?

Probably I am mixing things...

Eetu

  Please, regard all my statements as questions,
  no matter how they are formulated.

[philip 2018.03.09]

The behavioral illusion refers to the fact that the behavior [where the behavior is the observable event we are referring to] does not correlate to the controlled variable [where the controlled variable is the perception which is influenced by the behavior]. Instead, the behavior correlates with the disturbance [where the disturbance is an event that is influencing the controlled variable independent of the behavior].

In a pct experiment, we expect behavior to correlate with disturbance and we expect perception to correlate with intention.

···

On Friday, March 9, 2018, Eetu Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi wrote:

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-03-09_10:34:24 UTC]

I think I have conceptual problems in understanding the concept of “behavioral illusion” and its use. I start by stating how I understand it at the moment. Please correct.

Say, a person is walking on the field with a big brush. Every now and then she is brushing the ground with that brush. We can see that she brushes fallen leaves away from the pathway. We infer that she controls for clean pathway, or for “no fallen leaves in pathway”. (We could have done another inference, to which I will return.) Now we see that she suddenly starts to use the brush in a new way and with much more power. We ask what happened. We can sharpen our question and ask what went to her. Then we can infer that she got mad with endless leaves. Or we can take a closer look and infer that there is now a different kind of a leaf which is fixed to the pathway surface. So nothing went to her, she just continues what she was doing, but the situation requires different behavior for that. If in this situation we had stuck to the inference that something went to her, that would have been a “behavioral illusion”, right? We thought that the happening, the change of her behavior tells or signals something about her but it was nothing in her but only a change in the environment - a change in the feedback function.

But perhaps, someone had given her that brush and asked her to bring it quick to an other end of the field. But during the walk she perceived those leaves and started to brush them away. In this situation we could have a asked what happened, what went to her. We could infer that the leaves on the pathway is a stimulus which causes the brushing reaction in her. Is this (behavioristic) inference a kind of an inverted behavioral illusion, or is it just a “normal” behavioral illusion? In reality she was already controlling for cleanness of the pathway, and the leaves were just disturbances for her perception. The change in her behavior does not tell or signal (necessarily) anything about changes in her, but changes in the environment, but now not in a feedback function but in the disturbance.

What is the difference between the first and latter illusion? The change from loose to fixed leaves is a change of disturbance as much as a change of feedback function?

After this my understanding is that we can first fall in a “behavioristic illusion” if we think that environment somehow linearly causes the behavior of an organism when we should think that the organism is already controlling something and the environmental change only changes the context of the action of the organism. Then later after that correction we can fall in a “behavioral illusion” if we think in an other way round that the change in the behavior of the controlling organism is caused by changes inside the organism when it in reality is caused only by the changes in the environment?

(If I think the two alternative rival worldviews of psychology, behaviorism and cognitivism, the latter one could be called “cognitivist illusion”?)

In both of these cases the term “illusion” in problematic because they are rather inferential errors?

Probably I am mixing things…

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

[From Fred Nickols (2018.03.09.1313 ET)]

Thanks for this, Philip. That is the most succinct and clear explanation of the behavioral illusion that I’ve read.

Fred Nickols

···

From: PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 12:38 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Behav. illusions

[philip 2018.03.09]

The behavioral illusion refers to the fact that the behavior [where the behavior is the observable event we are referring to] does not correlate to the controlled variable [where the controlled variable is the perception which is influenced by the behavior]. Instead, the behavior correlates with the disturbance [where the disturbance is an event that is influencing the controlled variable independent of the behavior].

In a pct experiment, we expect behavior to correlate with disturbance and we expect perception to correlate with intention.

On Friday, March 9, 2018, Eetu Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi wrote:

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-03-09_10:34:24 UTC]

I think I have conceptual problems in understanding the concept of “behavioral illusion” and its use. I start by stating how I understand it at the moment. Please correct.

Say, a person is walking on the field with a big brush. Every now and then she is brushing the ground with that brush. We can see that she brushes fallen leaves away from the pathway. We infer that she controls for clean pathway, or for “no fallen leaves in pathway”. (We could have done another inference, to which I will return.) Now we see that she suddenly starts to use the brush in a new way and with much more power. We ask what happened. We can sharpen our question and ask what went to her. Then we can infer that she got mad with endless leaves. Or we can take a closer look and infer that there is now a different kind of a leaf which is fixed to the pathway surface. So nothing went to her, she just continues what she was doing, but the situation requires different behavior for that. If in this situation we had stuck to the inference that something went to her, that would have been a “behavioral illusion”, right? We thought that the happening, the change of her behavior tells or signals something about her but it was nothing in her but only a change in the environment - a change in the feedback function.

But perhaps, someone had given her that brush and asked her to bring it quick to an other end of the field. But during the walk she perceived those leaves and started to brush them away. In this situation we could have a asked what happened, what went to her. We could infer that the leaves on the pathway is a stimulus which causes the brushing reaction in her. Is this (behavioristic) inference a kind of an inverted behavioral illusion, or is it just a “normal” behavioral illusion? In reality she was already controlling for cleanness of the pathway, and the leaves were just disturbances for her perception. The change in her behavior does not tell or signal (necessarily) anything about changes in her, but changes in the environment, but now not in a feedback function but in the disturbance.

What is the difference between the first and latter illusion? The change from loose to fixed leaves is a change of disturbance as much as a change of feedback function?

After this my understanding is that we can first fall in a “behavioristic illusion” if we think that environment somehow linearly causes the behavior of an organism when we should think that the organism is already controlling something and the environmental change only changes the context of the action of the organism. Then later after that correction we can fall in a “behavioral illusion” if we think in an other way round that the change in the behavior of the controlling organism is caused by changes inside the organism when it in reality is caused only by the changes in the environment?

(If I think the two alternative rival worldviews of psychology, behaviorism and cognitivism, the latter one could be called “cognitivist illusion”?)

In both of these cases the term “illusion” in problematic because they are rather inferential errors?

Probably I am mixing things…

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,
no matter how they are formulated.

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.09.12.28]

No, I won't correct you, but I hope that what I say may help you

determine whether correction is needed.
There are two words in “behavioral illusion”, both of which should
be considered in isolation as well as together. First, why “behavioural”? The obvious reason for this is that
“behaviour” is observed. There would be no illusion if that is all
that is implied. Hidden behind the observable property of
“behaviour” is the word “behaviourist”, referring to a way of
thinking about the interactions between the person (or other
organism, often a rat or a pigeon) and the observable world. The key
words there are “stimulus” and “response”. The a behaviourist, the
“behaviour” is the observable “response”. How does the form of the
response depend on the stimulus? Clearly the form is determined by
the internal processes of the organism that intervene between
“stimulus” and “response”.
PCT does not deny that there are processes within the organism that
intervene between “stimulus” and “response”, but argues that those
processes do not autonomously determine the form of the response.
According to PCT, that form is determined by the relationship
between output (a.k.a.“behaviour”) and the environmental variable
that corresponds to a controlled perception. Explicitly, the form of
the “response” is shaped by the external environment, and the
internal processes are tuned to conform, as they must if control is
to be good.
Now “illusion”. “Illusion” has no specific technical meaning in PCT,
so we use the everyday meaning, that an illusion occurs when we
perceive something to be true of the environment that differs from
real reality. This everyday meaning encounters a practical (or maybe
philosophical) difficulty. We can never know for sure what real
reality is, so how can we define an illusion as occurring when a
perception of an aspect of real reality differs from what it
purports to represent? The answer has to be that this is a bad
definition of “illusion” from a practical viewpoint, however much it
describes what we feel to be an illusion, perhaps one created by a
stage magician, perhaps something much more mundane such as the
appearance of a surface to be wet when it actually is covered with
black ice on which one slips and falls.
This latter example suggests a more practical way to discover
whether an illusion exists in a particular case. If something that
“should be” perceived as the same by two different methods is
actually perceived as different, an illusion is occurring. There are
three possibilities as to the nature of the illusion, one of the two
perceptions or the perceptual relationship of “should be the same”.
For example, I may have misperceived as wet what was ice, I may have
slipped although it was really only wet and was not ice, or I may
have been looking at one place and slipped on another.
The “should be the same” applies to being told what something is,
which is a possible method of perceiving it. Consider the famous
blue or white dress illusion:
This dress is actually a rich blue with black stripes, or so it
seemed when it was worn in sunlight by a presenter in a TV
documentary on perception, but when she moved into a differently lit
tent, it seemed to be white with gold stripes. The “should be the
same” in this case derives from the notion that the dress should
have not changed its material colour because she walked into the
tent. One or other of the dress colour schemes is an illusion, but
it is impossible to tell which, simply from the facts I described.
The way one can determine that the white-gold perception is the
illusion is prior experience with materials in sunlight as opposed
to places lit by light of different spectral qualities. There is
nothing absolute about it, but our perceptions are more consistent
with each other if we take the colour observed in sunlight to be the
“correct” one.
Think of the Ames Room illusion, which depends on two different sets
of consistencies that “should be” the same. All the corners in the
room are consistent with a perception of a rectangular room. A
person walking across the back of this room changes size during the
traverse. This latter is inconsistent with the perception of the
room as rectangular, so there is an illusion. Which perception is
illusory? Changing the viewpoint makes the visual angles of the room
corners inconsistent with a perception of the room as rectangular,
which resolves the illusion by showing that the problem initially
was with the perception of the room as rectangular.
In none of the illusions can we say that the illusion is discovered
by a disagreement between what is perceived to be the case and what
is actually the case. The illusion is always discovered by a
discrepancy between two perceptions. The illusion is always in the
mind, not in the reality, though the failure of the “A should be the
same as B” paradigm demonstrates that some perception does differ
from the purportedly corresponding reality. And so it is in the case
of the “Behavioural Illusion.”
The “behavioural Illusion” exists in the mind of someone who claims
to perceive that reality specifies that the form of a “response”
behaviour is determined by the “stimulus”, at least in the mind of a
PCT theorist it exists there. The PCT theorist perceives instead an
unbroken feedback loop that includes both “stimulus” and “response”,
but also includes a controlled perceptual variable and an
environmental variable. The PCT theorist’s perception of the reason
for the form of the response differs from what “should be the same”
if the behaviourist is describing the reason for the form of the
response, so there is an illusion, which the PCT theorist perceives
as existing in the mind of the behaviourist.
There is no “Behavioural Illusion” in real reality, but I imagine
that a behaviourist would perceive that one exists in the mind of
the PCT theorist, if they considered the question at all. When you
talk of there being a “Behavioural Illusion”, the illusion is not in
the situation, but in someone’s perception of the situation.
In Eetu’s case, you, the viewer of the person brushing the leaves,
have a succession of perceptions of the brusher’s intentions. Those
perceptions differ when they “should be the same”. Therefore at
least one, and possibly all, of them do not correspond to her
intentions in real reality. They are illusions, though one of them
might not be. Is any of the ones you proposed a “Behavioural
Illusion”? I don’t think so, because they all presuppose that she
has an intention for her brushing, which implies that the “stimulus”
of the leaves is not itself responsible for the “response” of
“brushing behaviour”.
This isn’t quite right, in an important way. The Behavioural
illusion refers to the path between the behaviour (output) and its
influence on the environmental variable, The internal processes
(plus the environmental processes between the variable and the
sensory systems) must create a function approximately the inverse of
the function relating output to the environmental variable
(approximately, because control is never perfect). The illusion is
that the internal processes determine the functional relationship
between stimulus and response, whereas it is the environmental path
function that actually determines it (according to PCT).
Martin

nkfdhedkbdkegejk.jpg

···

On 2018/03/9 6:37 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen
wrote:


[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-03-09_10:34:24 UTC]
I think I have conceptual problems in understanding the concept of "behavioral illusion" and its use. I start by stating how I understand it at the moment. Please correct.

[philip 2018.03.09]

    The behavioral illusion refers to the fact that the behavior

[where the behavior is the observable event we are referring to]
does not correlate to the controlled variable [where the
controlled variable is the perception which is influenced by the
behavior]. Instead, the behavior correlates with the
disturbance [where the disturbance is an event that is
influencing the controlled variable independent of the
behavior].

  In a pct experiment, we expect behavior to correlate with

disturbance and we expect perception to correlate with intention.


Say, a person is walking on the field with a big brush. Every now and then she is brushing the ground with that brush. We can see that she brushes fallen leaves away from the pathway. We infer that she controls for clean pathway, or for "no fallen leaves in pathway". (We could have done another inference, to which I will return.) Now we see that she suddenly starts to use the brush in a new way and with much more power. We ask what happened. We can sharpen our question and ask what went to her. Then we can infer that she got mad with endless leaves. Or we can take a closer look and infer that there is now a different kind of a leaf which is fixed to the pathway surface. So nothing went to her, she just continues what she was doing, but the situation requires different behavior for that. If in this situation we had stuck to the inference that something went to her, that would have been a "behavioral illusion", right? We thought that the happening, the change of her behavior tells or signals something about her but it was nothing in her but only a change in the environment - a change in the feedback function.
But perhaps, someone had given her that brush and asked her to bring it quick to an other end of the field. But during the walk she perceived those leaves and started to brush them away. In this situation we could have a asked what happened, what went to her. We could infer that the leaves on the pathway is a stimulus which causes the brushing reaction in her. Is this (behavioristic) inference a kind of an inverted behavioral illusion, or is it just a "normal" behavioral illusion? In reality she was already controlling for cleanness of the pathway, and the leaves were just disturbances for her perception. The change in her behavior does not tell or signal (necessarily) anything about changes in her, but changes in the environment, but now not in a feedback function but in the disturbance. What is the difference between the first and latter illusion? The change from loose to fixed leaves is a change of disturbance as much as a change of feedback function? After this my understanding is that we can first fall in a "behavioristic illusion" if we think that environment somehow linearly causes the behavior of an organism when we should think that the organism is already controlling something and the environmental change only changes the context of the action of the organism. Then later after that correction we can fall in a "behavioral illusion" if we think in an other way round that the change in the behavior of the controlling organism is caused by changes inside the organism when it in reality is caused only by the changes in the environment?
(If I think the two alternative rival worldviews of psychology, behaviorism and cognitivism, the latter one could be called "cognitivist illusion"?)
In both of these cases the term "illusion" in problematic because they are rather inferential errors?
Probably I am mixing things...
Eetu
Please, regard all my statements as questions,
no matter how they are formulated.

[Rick Marken 2018-03-09_15:03:56]

[philip 2018.03.09]Â
PY: The behavioral illusion refers to the fact that the behavior [where the behavior is the observable event we are referring to] does not correlate to the controlled variable [where the controlled variable is the perception which is influenced by the behavior]. Instead, the behavior correlates with the disturbance [where the disturbance is an event that is influencing the controlled variable independent of the behavior].Â

Â
RM: I prefer the definition given in our reply paper:  "...the behavioral illusion occurs when an observed relationship between variables is seen as revealing something about the mechanisms that produce a behavior when, in fact, it does not. For example, the behavioral illusion occurs when “reinforcementâ€? is seen as “selectingâ€? the behavior that produced it (Marken and Powers 1989; Yin 2013, pp. 342–343) or when a tap on the patellar tendon is seenn as the cause of the knee-jerk response (Marken 2014b, p. 123). The illusion occurs when the behavior under study is assumed to be that of an open-loop, cause–effect system when it is actually that of a closed-loop control system (Powers 1978)".
Best
Rick

···

--
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

The behavioral illusion doctrine states that an experimenter cannot use an observed relationship between the output and the disturbance to describe a dependence between the input and the output. Nor can this observed relationship between output and disturbance be used to describe a dependence between the input and disturbance. The purpose of this doctrine is to prevent an experimenter from using a shown dependence to reveal something about the mechanisms that produce the output.


Virus-free. www.avast.com

···

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-03-09_15:03:56]

[philip 2018.03.09]Â

PY: The behavioral illusion refers to the fact that the behavior [where the behavior is the observable event we are referring to] does not correlate to the controlled variable [where the controlled variable is the perception which is influenced by the behavior]. Instead, the behavior correlates with the disturbance [where the disturbance is an event that is influencing the controlled variable independent of the behavior].Â

Â

RM: I prefer the definition given in our reply paper:  “…the behavioral illusion occurs when an observed relationship between variables is seen as revealing something about the mechanisms that produce a behavior when, in fact, it does not. For example, the behavioral illusion occurs when “reinforcementâ€? is seen as “selectingâ€? the behavior that produced it (Marken and Powers 1989; Yin 2013, pp. 342–343) or when a tap on the patelllar tendon is seen as the cause of the knee-jerk response (Marken 2014b, p. 123). The illusion occurs when the behavior under study is assumed to be that of an open-loop, cause–effect system when it is actuaally that of a closed-loop control system (Powers 1978)”.

Best

Rick

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[philip 2018.03.10]

I please excuse the fact that I didn’t label my above post with name and date.Â

···

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 1:45 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

The behavioral illusion doctrine states that an experimenter cannot use an observed relationship between the output and the disturbance to describe a dependence between the input and the output. Nor can this observed relationship between output and disturbance be used to describe a dependence between the input and disturbance. The purpose of this doctrine is to prevent an experimenter from using a shown dependence to reveal something about the mechanisms that produce the output.


Virus-free. www.avast.com

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-03-09_15:03:56]

[philip 2018.03.09]Â

PY: The behavioral illusion refers to the fact that the behavior [where the behavior is the observable event we are referring to] does not correlate to the controlled variable [where the controlled variable is the perception which is influenced by the behavior]. Instead, the behavior correlates with the disturbance [where the disturbance is an event that is influencing the controlled variable independent of the behavior].Â

Â

RM: I prefer the definition given in our reply paper:  “…the behavioral illusion occurs when an observed relationship between variables is seen as revealing something about the mechanisms that produce a behavior when, in fact, it does not. For example, the behavioral illusion occurs when “reinforcementâ€? is seen as “selectingâ€? the behavior that produced it (Marken and Powers 1989; Yin 2013, pp. 342–343) or when a tap on the patellar tendon is seenn as the cause of the knee-jerk response (Marken 2014b, p. 123). The illusion occurs when the behavior under study is assumed to be that of an open-loop, cause–effect system when it is actually that of a closed-loop control system (Powers 1978)”.

Best

Rick

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.17.23]

Actually, this isn't correct, and there is no "doctrine" involved.

It’s a simple requirement of control loops. The behavioural illusion
is based on a fundamental fact about negative feedback loops that
stabilize their variables, and therefore about control loops that
control well. If there is a functional relation f(AB) between the
variation at point A and the variation at point B going one way
around the loop, the functional relation f(BA) going the rest of the
way around the loop is the inverse function: f(BA) = f-AB).
If “A” is the output, and “B” the CEV, the environmental variable
that corresponds to the controlled perceptual variable, and if a
change in the CEV is taken to be a “stimulus”, then the response
(output) is determined by the properties of the environmental link
between A and B. Those properties, which produce f(AB), are
observable, in principle, and are not influenced by whatever happens
inside the organism. The internal mechanisms are not observable, but
they must be such as to produce f(BA) of a specific form, that form
being f(AB). The modelling done in simulations to analyze the mechanisms that
produce the output relies on this fact (and on the discrepancy from
f(AB) that occurs because of imperfect control). The
Behavioural Illusion is in someone’s perception that the internal
processes determine the form of the output in a situation for which
control is good.
Martin

···

On 2018/03/10 4:45 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN wrote:

    The behavioral illusion doctrine states that an

experimenter cannot use an observed relationship between the
output and the disturbance to describe a dependence between the
input and the output. Nor can this observed relationship between
output and disturbance be used to describe a dependence between
the input and disturbance. The purpose of this doctrine is to
prevent an experimenter from using a shown dependence to reveal
something about the mechanisms that produce the output.

1(

-1

-1


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

      On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Richard

Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
wrote:

              [Rick Marken

2018-03-09_15:03:56]

                [philip

2018.03.09]Â

                  PY: The behavioral illusion refers to the fact

that the behavior [where the behavior is the
observable event we are referring to] does not
correlate to the controlled variable [where the
controlled variable is the perception which is
influenced by the behavior]. Instead, the
behavior correlates with the disturbance [where
the disturbance is an event that is influencing
the controlled variable independent of the
behavior].Â

Â

                RM: I prefer the definition given in our reply

paper:Â Â “…the
behavioral illusion occurs when an observed
relationship between variables is seen
as revealing something about the mechanisms that
produce a behavior when, in fact, it does not. For
example, the behavioral illusion occurs when
“reinforcement� is seen as “selecting� the
behavior that produced it (Marken and Powers 1989;
Yin 2013, pp. 342–343) or when a tap on the
patellar tendon is seen as the cause of the
knee-jerk response (Marken 2014b, p. 123). The
illusion occurs when the behavior under study is
assumed to be that of an open-loop, cause–effect
system when it is actually that of a closed-loop
control system (Powers 1978)”.

Best

Rick

                                        Richard S.

MarkenÂ

                                            "Perfection

is achieved not when you
have nothing more to
add, but when you
have
nothing left to take
away.�
Â
           Â
   --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

[philip 2019.03.10]

An observed relationship between the output and the disturbance can only describe the form f(AB). This relationship cannot be used to describe the form f-1(AB). These two sentences are the behavioral illusion doctrine. Please refer to the last paragraph of page 9 of Bill’s paper (1978):Â

If one varies a distal stimulus q(d) and observes that a measure of
behavior q(o) shows a strong regular dependence on q(d), there is certainly a temptation to assume that the form of the dependence reveals
something about the organism. Yet, the comparison
we have just seen indicates that the
form of the dependence may reflect only properties
of the local environment.

The Behavioural Illusion is in someone’s perception that the the form of f(AB) reflects something about f-1(AB). The term f(AB) reflects how the distal stimulus determines the form of the output. The term, f-1(AB), reflects how the internal processes determine the form of the output. Â

···

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.17.23]

  On 2018/03/10 4:45 PM, PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN wrote:

    The behavioral illusion doctrine states that an

experimenter cannot use an observed relationship between the
output and the disturbance to describe a dependence between the
input and the output. Nor can this observed relationship between
output and disturbance be used to describe a dependence between
the input and disturbance. The purpose of this doctrine is to
prevent an experimenter from using a shown dependence to reveal
something about the mechanisms that produce the output.

Actually, this isn't correct, and there is no "doctrine" involved.

It’s a simple requirement of control loops. The behavioural illusion
is based on a fundamental fact about negative feedback loops that
stabilize their variables, and therefore about control loops that
control well. If there is a functional relation f(AB) between the
variation at point A and the variation at point B going one way
around the loop, the functional relation f(BA) going the rest of the
way around the loop is the inverse function: f(BA) = f-1(AB).

If "A" is the output, and "B" the CEV, the environmental variable

that corresponds to the controlled perceptual variable, and if a
change in the CEV is taken to be a “stimulus”, then the response
(output) is determined by the properties of the environmental link
between A and B. Those properties, which produce f(AB), are
observable, in principle, and are not influenced by whatever happens
inside the organism. The internal mechanisms are not observable, but
they must be such as to produce f(BA) of a specific form, that form
being f-1(AB).

The modelling done in simulations to analyze the mechanisms that

produce the output relies on this fact (and on the discrepancy from
f-1 (AB) that occurs because of imperfect control). The
Behavioural Illusion is in someone’s perception that the internal
processes determine the form of the output in a situation for which
control is good.

Martin


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

      On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Richard

Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
wrote:

              [Rick Marken

2018-03-09_15:03:56]

                [philip

2018.03.09]Â

                  PY: The behavioral illusion refers to the fact

that the behavior [where the behavior is the
observable event we are referring to] does not
correlate to the controlled variable [where the
controlled variable is the perception which is
influenced by the behavior]. Instead, the
behavior correlates with the disturbance [where
the disturbance is an event that is influencing
the controlled variable independent of the
behavior].Â

Â

                RM: I prefer the definition given in our reply

paper:Â Â “…the
behavioral illusion occurs when an observed
relationship between variables is seen
as revealing something about the mechanisms that
produce a behavior when, in fact, it does not. For
example, the behavioral illusion occurs when
“reinforcement� is seen as “selecting� the
behavior that produced it (Marken and Powers 1989;
Yin 2013, pp. 342–343) or when a tap on the
patellar tendon is seen as the cause of the
knee-jerk response (Marken 2014b, p. 123). The
illusion occurs when the behavior under study is
assumed to be that of an open-loop, cause–effect
system when it is actually that of a closed-loop
control system (Powers 1978)”.

Best

Rick

                                        Richard S.

MarkenÂ

                                            "Perfection

is achieved not when you
have nothing more to
add, but when you
have
nothing left to take
away.�
Â
           Â
   --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

[philip 2018.03.10]

Eetu,

A person cleaning a pathway with a brush suddenly starts to brush with much more power. We ask what happened. We can sharpen our question and ask what went to her. She either got mad with endless leaves or there is now a different kind of leaf which is fixed to the pathway surface. So nothing went to her, but the situation requires different behavior for that because of the change in the environmental feedback function. If in this situation we had stuck to the inference that something went to her, that would have been a “behavioral illusion”. The behavioral illusion is where we think we can discern between “the effect that a change in the environmental feedback function would have on the output” with “the effect that a change in what went to her would have on the output” just by looking at the output.

Now perhaps, someone had given her that brush and asked her to bring it as quickly as possible to the other end of the field. But during the walk she perceived those leaves and started to brush them away. In this situation we could have asked what happened, what went to her. We could infer that the leaves on the pathway are a stimulus which causes the brushing reaction in her. She is both following instructions and cleaning the pathway, and each of the behaviors is in the environmental feedback function of the other.

···

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 3:12 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[philip 2019.03.10]

An observed relationship between the output and the disturbance can only describe the form f(AB). This relationship cannot be used to describe the form f-1(AB). These two sentences are the behavioral illusion doctrine. Please refer to the last paragraph of page 9 of Bill’s paper (1978):Â

If one varies a distal stimulus q(d) and observes that a measure of
behavior q(o) shows a strong regular dependence on q(d), there is certainly a temptation to assume that the form of the dependence reveals
something about the organism. Yet, the comparison
we have just seen indicates that the
form of the dependence may reflect only properties
of the local environment.

The Behavioural Illusion is in someone’s perception that the the form of f(AB) reflects something about f-1(AB). The term f(AB) reflects how the distal stimulus determines the form of the output. The term, f-1(AB), reflects how the internal processes determine the form of the output. Â

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.17.23]

  On 2018/03/10 4:45 PM, PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN wrote:

    The behavioral illusion doctrine states that an

experimenter cannot use an observed relationship between the
output and the disturbance to describe a dependence between the
input and the output. Nor can this observed relationship between
output and disturbance be used to describe a dependence between
the input and disturbance. The purpose of this doctrine is to
prevent an experimenter from using a shown dependence to reveal
something about the mechanisms that produce the output.

Actually, this isn't correct, and there is no "doctrine" involved.

It’s a simple requirement of control loops. The behavioural illusion
is based on a fundamental fact about negative feedback loops that
stabilize their variables, and therefore about control loops that
control well. If there is a functional relation f(AB) between the
variation at point A and the variation at point B going one way
around the loop, the functional relation f(BA) going the rest of the
way around the loop is the inverse function: f(BA) = f-1(AB).

If "A" is the output, and "B" the CEV, the environmental variable

that corresponds to the controlled perceptual variable, and if a
change in the CEV is taken to be a “stimulus”, then the response
(output) is determined by the properties of the environmental link
between A and B. Those properties, which produce f(AB), are
observable, in principle, and are not influenced by whatever happens
inside the organism. The internal mechanisms are not observable, but
they must be such as to produce f(BA) of a specific form, that form
being f-1(AB).

The modelling done in simulations to analyze the mechanisms that

produce the output relies on this fact (and on the discrepancy from
f-1 (AB) that occurs because of imperfect control). The
Behavioural Illusion is in someone’s perception that the internal
processes determine the form of the output in a situation for which
control is good.

Martin


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

      On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Richard

Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
wrote:

              [Rick Marken

2018-03-09_15:03:56]

                [philip

2018.03.09]Â

                  PY: The behavioral illusion refers to the fact

that the behavior [where the behavior is the
observable event we are referring to] does not
correlate to the controlled variable [where the
controlled variable is the perception which is
influenced by the behavior]. Instead, the
behavior correlates with the disturbance [where
the disturbance is an event that is influencing
the controlled variable independent of the
behavior].Â

Â

                RM: I prefer the definition given in our reply

paper:Â Â “…the
behavioral illusion occurs when an observed
relationship between variables is seen
as revealing something about the mechanisms that
produce a behavior when, in fact, it does not. For
example, the behavioral illusion occurs when
“reinforcement� is seen as “selecting� the
behavior that produced it (Marken and Powers 1989;
Yin 2013, pp. 342–343) or when a tap on the
patellar tendon is seen as the cause of the
knee-jerk response (Marken 2014b, p. 123). The
illusion occurs when the behavior under study is
assumed to be that of an open-loop, cause–effect
system when it is actually that of a closed-loop
control system (Powers 1978)”.

Best

Rick

                                        Richard S.

MarkenÂ

                                            "Perfection

is achieved not when you
have nothing more to
add, but when you
have
nothing left to take
away.�
Â
           Â
   --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

[Rick Marken 2018-03-10_17:50:34]

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.17.23]

PY: The behavioral illusion doctrine states that an experimenter cannot use an observed relationship between the output and the disturbance to describe a dependence between the input and the output...

MT: Actually, this isn't correct.

RM: Nor is yours.Â
RM: I think if you (and Alex and Bruce and...) would just read our original paper and our reply to the rebuttals non-defensively you would learn why the power law tells us nothing about the mechanisms responsible for movement production, why researchers have succumbed to the idea that it does and how you might go about doing research that would tell you something about the mechanisms responsible for movement production.
BestÂ
Rick

···

--
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Rick,Â
Please post your original paper.Â


Virus-free. www.avast.com

···

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-03-10_17:50:34]

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.17.23]

    PY: The behavioral illusion doctrine states that an

experimenter cannot use an observed relationship between the
output and the disturbance to describe a dependence between the
input and the output…

MT: Actually, this isn’t correct.

RM: Nor is yours.Â

RM: I think if you (and Alex and Bruce and…) would just read our original paper and our reply to the rebuttals non-defensively you would learn why the power law tells us nothing about the mechanisms responsible for movement production, why researchers have succumbed to the idea that it does and how you might go about doing research that would tell you something about the mechanisms responsible for movement production.

BestÂ

Rick


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Martin Taylor 2018/-3/10/23/03]

And if you would respond to the criticism that we published instead

of to ones you invented for the purpose of rebutting them, you might
also learn something.
Martin

···

On 2018/03/10 8:52 PM, Richard Marken
wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-03-10_17:50:34]

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.17.23]

                  PY: The behavioral illusion doctrine

states that an experimenter cannot use an observed
relationship between the output and
the disturbance to describe a dependence between
the input and the output…

MT: Actually, this isn’t correct.

RM: Nor is yours.

          RM: I think if you (and Alex and Bruce and...) would

just read our original paper and our reply to the
rebuttals non-defensively you would learn why the power
law tells us nothing about the mechanisms responsible for
movement production, why researchers have succumbed to the
idea that it does and how you might go about doing
research that would tell you something about the
mechanisms responsible for movement production.

I am of the impression that a disturbance did not exist in the helicopter chasing experiment.


Virus-free. www.avast.com

···

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018/-3/10/23/03]

  On 2018/03/10 8:52 PM, Richard Marken

wrote:

And if you would respond to the criticism that we published instead

of to ones you invented for the purpose of rebutting them, you might
also learn something.

Martin

[Rick Marken 2018-03-10_17:50:34]

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.17.23]

                  PY: The behavioral illusion doctrine

states that an experimenter cannot use an observed
relationship between the output and
the disturbance to describe a dependence between
the input and the output…

MT: Actually, this isn’t correct.

RM: Nor is yours.

          RM: I think if you (and Alex and Bruce and...) would

just read our original paper and our reply to the
rebuttals non-defensively you would learn why the power
law tells us nothing about the mechanisms responsible for
movement production, why researchers have succumbed to the
idea that it does and how you might go about doing
research that would tell you something about the
mechanisms responsible for movement production.

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.23.14]

[philip 2019.03.10]

      An observed relationship between the output and the

disturbance can only describe the form f(AB). This
relationship cannot be used to describe the form f-1(AB).

If the function f(.) is invertible, it completely describes f-1(.),

just as the form of a jigsaw piece determines the form of the piece
next to it in the puzzle. The question is which one is responsible
for the form being what it is. The Behavioural Illusion is that the
internal processes are responsible, whereas they are capable only of
compensating for the effects between the output and the CEV that are
imposed by the external environment.

      These two sentences are the behavioral illusion doctrine.

Please refer to the last paragraph of page 9 of Bill’s paper
(1978):Â

                              If one varies a distal

stimulus q(d) and observes that a measure of
behavior q(o) shows a strong regular
dependence on q(d) , there is
certainly a temptation to assume that
the form of the dependence reveals
something about the organism. Yet, the
comparison
we have just seen indicates that the
form of the dependence may reflect
only properties
of the local environment.

        The Behavioural Illusion is in

someone’s perception that the the form of f(AB) reflects
something about f-1(AB).

        No. There's no illusion there.

It’s just a simple fact. Whether you call it a fact of physics or
of mathematics is up to you, but it is not an illusion.

        The term f(AB) reflects how

the distal stimulus determines the form of the output.

Yes.

 The term, f-1 (AB),
reflects how the internal processes determine the form of
the output.Â

        If you replace "how" with "that",

you have a description of the Behavioural Illusion in someone’s
mind. Another way of putting it is “The term f-1 (AB)
determines what the internal processes must do in order for
control to be effective, given that the environmental function
is f(AB). If a person perceives that the internal processes
produce f-1( AB) and assumes that they do it
autonomously, independently of the external environment, that is
the Behavioural Illusion.”

    Martin
···

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Martin
Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.17.23]

              On

2018/03/10 4:45 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN wrote:

                The behavioral illusion doctrine states

that an experimenter cannot use an observed
relationship between the output and
the disturbance to describe a dependence between the
input and the output. Nor can this observed
relationship between output and disturbance be used
to describe a dependence between the input and
disturbance. The purpose of this doctrine is to
prevent an experimenter from using a shown
dependence to reveal something about the mechanisms
that produce the output.

           Actually, this isn't correct, and there is no

“doctrine” involved. It’s a simple requirement of control
loops. The behavioural illusion is based on a fundamental
fact about negative feedback loops that stabilize their
variables, and therefore about control loops that control
well. If there is a functional relation f(AB) between the
variation at point A and the variation at point B going
one way around the loop, the functional relation f(BA)
going the rest of the way around the loop is the inverse
function: f(BA) = f-1(AB).

          If "A" is the output, and "B" the CEV, the environmental

variable that corresponds to the controlled perceptual
variable, and if a change in the CEV is taken to be a
“stimulus”, then the response (output) is determined by
the properties of the environmental link between A and B.
Those properties, which produce f(AB), are observable, in
principle, and are not influenced by whatever happens
inside the organism. The internal mechanisms are not
observable, but they must be such as to produce f(BA) of a
specific form, that form being f-1(AB).

          The modelling done in simulations to analyze the

mechanisms that produce the output relies on this fact
(and on the discrepancy from f-1 (AB) that
occurs because of imperfect control). The Behavioural
Illusion is in someone’s perception that the internal
processes determine the form of the output in a situation
for which control is good.

              Martin


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

                  On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:04

PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
wrote:

                          [Rick Marken

2018-03-09_15:03:56]

                            [philip

2018.03.09]Â

                              PY: The behavioral illusion refers

to the fact that the behavior [where
the behavior is the observable event
we are referring to] does not
correlate to the controlled variable
[where the controlled variable is the
perception which is influenced by the
behavior]. Instead, the behavior
correlates with the disturbance [where
the disturbance is an event that is
influencing the controlled variable
independent of the behavior].Â

Â

                            RM: I prefer the definition given in

our reply paper:Â Â “…the
behavioral illusion occurs when an
observed relationship between
variables is seen as revealing
something about the mechanisms that
produce a behavior when, in fact, it
does not. For example, the behavioral
illusion occurs when “reinforcement�
is seen as “selecting� the behavior
that produced it (Marken and Powers
1989; Yin 2013, pp. 342–343) or wwhen a
tap on the patellar tendon is seen as
the cause of the knee-jerk response
(Marken 2014b, p. 123). The illusion
occurs when the behavior under study
is assumed to be that of an open-loop,
cause–effect system when it is
actually that of a closed-loop control
system (Powers 1978)”.

Best

Rick

                                                    Richard

S. MarkenÂ

                                                      "Perfection

is achieved
not when you
have nothing
more to add,
but when you
have
nothing left
to take away.�
Â
      Â
      Â
 --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

If a person perceives that the internal processes produce f-1(AB) and assumes that they do it autonomously, independently of the external environment, that is consciousness.


Virus-free. www.avast.com

···

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.23.14]

[philip 2019.03.10]

      An observed relationship between the output and the

disturbance can only describe the form f(AB). This
relationship cannot be used to describe the form f-1(AB).

If the function f(.) is invertible, it completely describes f-1(.),

just as the form of a jigsaw piece determines the form of the piece
next to it in the puzzle. The question is which one is responsible
for the form being what it is. The Behavioural Illusion is that the
internal processes are responsible, whereas they are capable only of
compensating for the effects between the output and the CEV that are
imposed by the external environment.

      These two sentences are the behavioral illusion doctrine.

Please refer to the last paragraph of page 9 of Bill’s paper
(1978):Â

                              If one varies a distal

stimulus q(d) and observes that a measure of
behavior q(o) shows a strong regular
dependence on q(d) , there is
certainly a temptation to assume that
the form of the dependence reveals
something about the organism. Yet, the
comparison
we have just seen indicates that the
form of the dependence may reflect
only properties
of the local environment.

        The Behavioural Illusion is in

someone’s perception that the the form of f(AB) reflects
something about f-1(AB).

        No. There's no illusion there.

It’s just a simple fact. Whether you call it a fact of physics or
of mathematics is up to you, but it is not an illusion.

        The term f(AB) reflects how

the distal stimulus determines the form of the output.

Yes.

 The term, f-1 (AB),
reflects how the internal processes determine the form of
the output.Â

        If you replace "how" with "that",

you have a description of the Behavioural Illusion in someone’s
mind. Another way of putting it is “The term f-1 (AB)
determines what the internal processes must do in order for
control to be effective, given that the environmental function
is f(AB). If a person perceives that the internal processes
produce f-1( AB) and assumes that they do it
autonomously, independently of the external environment, that is
the Behavioural Illusion.”

    Martin
      On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Martin

Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.17.23]

              On

2018/03/10 4:45 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN wrote:

                The behavioral illusion doctrine states

that an experimenter cannot use an observed
relationship between the output and
the disturbance to describe a dependence between the
input and the output. Nor can this observed
relationship between output and disturbance be used
to describe a dependence between the input and
disturbance. The purpose of this doctrine is to
prevent an experimenter from using a shown
dependence to reveal something about the mechanisms
that produce the output.

           Actually, this isn't correct, and there is no

“doctrine” involved. It’s a simple requirement of control
loops. The behavioural illusion is based on a fundamental
fact about negative feedback loops that stabilize their
variables, and therefore about control loops that control
well. If there is a functional relation f(AB) between the
variation at point A and the variation at point B going
one way around the loop, the functional relation f(BA)
going the rest of the way around the loop is the inverse
function: f(BA) = f-1(AB).

          If "A" is the output, and "B" the CEV, the environmental

variable that corresponds to the controlled perceptual
variable, and if a change in the CEV is taken to be a
“stimulus”, then the response (output) is determined by
the properties of the environmental link between A and B.
Those properties, which produce f(AB), are observable, in
principle, and are not influenced by whatever happens
inside the organism. The internal mechanisms are not
observable, but they must be such as to produce f(BA) of a
specific form, that form being f-1(AB).

          The modelling done in simulations to analyze the

mechanisms that produce the output relies on this fact
(and on the discrepancy from f-1 (AB) that
occurs because of imperfect control). The Behavioural
Illusion is in someone’s perception that the internal
processes determine the form of the output in a situation
for which control is good.

              Martin


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

                  On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:04

PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
wrote:

                          [Rick Marken

2018-03-09_15:03:56]

                            [philip

2018.03.09]Â

                              PY: The behavioral illusion refers

to the fact that the behavior [where
the behavior is the observable event
we are referring to] does not
correlate to the controlled variable
[where the controlled variable is the
perception which is influenced by the
behavior]. Instead, the behavior
correlates with the disturbance [where
the disturbance is an event that is
influencing the controlled variable
independent of the behavior].Â

Â

                            RM: I prefer the definition given in

our reply paper:Â Â “…the
behavioral illusion occurs when an
observed relationship between
variables is seen as revealing
something about the mechanisms that
produce a behavior when, in fact, it
does not. For example, the behavioral
illusion occurs when “reinforcement�
is seen as “selecting� the behavior
that produced it (Marken and Powers
1989; Yin 2013, pp. 342–343) or wwhen a
tap on the patellar tendon is seen as
the cause of the knee-jerk response
(Marken 2014b, p. 123). The illusion
occurs when the behavior under study
is assumed to be that of an open-loop,
cause–effect system when it is
actually that of a closed-loop control
system (Powers 1978)”.

Best

Rick

                                                    Richard

S. MarkenÂ

                                                      "Perfection

is achieved
not when you
have nothing
more to add,
but when you
have
nothing left
to take away.�
Â
      Â
      Â
 --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.23.31]

···

On 2018/03/10 11:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN wrote:

        If a person perceives that the internal

processes produce f-1( AB) and assumes that they do it autonomously,
independently of the external environment, that is
consciousness.

  Explain what that has to do with

consciousness, and whose consciousness you are talking about,
please? Also please explain how this relates to the topic under
discussion, which is the nature of the Behavioural Illusion, and
behind that, why behaviourist (“Stimulus-Response” or “S-R”)
researchers have accepted the illusory perception as a truth about
Nature.

  Martin


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

      On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Martin

Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.23.14]

[philip 2019.03.10]

                  An observed relationship between the output and

the disturbance can only describe the form
f(AB). This relationship cannot be used to
describe the form f-1(AB).

           If the function f(.) is invertible, it completely

describes f-1(.), just as the form of a jigsaw piece
determines the form of the piece next to it in the puzzle.
The question is which one is responsible for the form
being what it is. The Behavioural Illusion is that the
internal processes are responsible, whereas they are
capable only of compensating for the effects between the
output and the CEV that are imposed by the external
environment.

                  These two sentences are the behavioral illusion

doctrine. Please refer to the last paragraph of
page 9 of Bill’s paper (1978):Â

                           If one

varies a distal stimulus q(d) and observes
that a measure of behavior q(o) shows
a strong regular dependence on q(d) , there is certainly
a temptation to assume that
the form of the dependence
reveals something about
the organism. Yet, the
comparison we have just
seen indicates that the
form of the dependence may
reflect only properties of
the local environment.

                    The Behavioural

Illusion is in someone’s perception that the the
form of f(AB) reflects something about f-1(AB).

                            No. There's no

illusion there. It’s just a simple fact. Whether you
call it a fact of physics or of mathematics is up to
you, but it is not an illusion.

                    The term f(AB)

reflects how the distal stimulus determines the
form of the output.

          Yes.

 The term, f-1 (AB), reflects how
the internal processes determine the form of the
output.Â

                            If you replace

“how” with “that”, you have a description of the
Behavioural Illusion in someone’s mind. Another way of
putting it is “The term f-1 (AB) determines
what the internal processes must do in order for
control to be effective, given that the environmental
function is f(AB). If a person perceives that the
internal processes produce f-1( AB) and
assumes that they do it autonomously, independently of
the external environment, that is the Behavioural
Illusion.”

                  Martin
                  On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at

2:41 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.17.23]

                          On

2018/03/10 4:45 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN wrote:

                            The behavioral illusion

doctrine states that an
experimenter cannot use an observed
relationship between the output and
the disturbance to describe a dependence
between the input and the output. Nor
can this observed relationship between
output and disturbance be used to
describe a dependence between the input
and disturbance. The purpose of this
doctrine is to prevent an experimenter
from using a shown dependence to reveal
something about the mechanisms that
produce the output.


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

                              On Fri, Mar 9,

2018 at 3:04 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
wrote:

                                      [Rick

Marken 2018-03-09_15:03:56]

                                        [philip

2018.03.09]Â

                                          PY: The behavioral

illusion refers to the
fact that the behavior
[where the behavior is the
observable event we are
referring to] does not
correlate to the
controlled variable [where
the controlled variable is
the perception which is
influenced by the
behavior]. Instead, the
behavior correlates with
the disturbance [where the
disturbance is an event
that is influencing the
controlled variable
independent of the
behavior].Â

Â

                                        RM: I prefer the

definition given in our
reply paper:Â Â “…the
behavioral illusion occurs
when an observed
relationship between
variables is seen
as revealing something
about the mechanisms that
produce a behavior when,
in fact, it does not. For
example, the behavioral
illusion occurs when
“reinforcement� is seen as
“selecting� the behavior
that produced it (Marken
and Powers 1989; Yin 2013,
pp. 342–343) or when a tap
on the patellar tendon is
seen as the cause of the
knee-jerk response (Marken
2014b, p. 123). The
illusion occurs when the
behavior under study is
assumed to be that of
an open-loop, cause–effect
system when it is actually
that of a closed-loop
control system (Powers
1978)”.

Best

Rick

                                                      Richard

S. MarkenÂ

                                                      "Perfection

is achieved
not when you
have nothing
more to add,
but when you
have
nothing left
to take away.�
Â
      Â
      Â
 --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

                       Actually, this isn't correct, and

there is no “doctrine” involved. It’s a simple
requirement of control loops. The behavioural
illusion is based on a fundamental fact about
negative feedback loops that stabilize their
variables, and therefore about control loops
that control well. If there is a functional
relation f(AB) between the variation at point
A and the variation at point B going one way
around the loop, the functional relation f(BA)
going the rest of the way around the loop is
the inverse function: f(BA) = f-1(AB).

                      If "A" is the output, and "B" the CEV, the

environmental variable that corresponds to the
controlled perceptual variable, and if a
change in the CEV is taken to be a “stimulus”,
then the response (output) is determined by
the properties of the environmental link
between A and B. Those properties, which
produce f(AB), are observable, in principle,
and are not influenced by whatever happens
inside the organism. The internal mechanisms
are not observable, but they must be such as
to produce f(BA) of a specific form, that form
being f-1(AB).

                      The modelling done in simulations to analyze

the mechanisms that produce the output relies
on this fact (and on the discrepancy from f-1 (AB)
that occurs because of imperfect control). The
Behavioural Illusion is in someone’s
perception that the internal processes
determine the form of the output in a
situation for which control is good.

                          Martin

When a person sees that a perception does not cause them to have an intention, they are conscious because their behavior is now resisting disturbances to their intention. Consciousness is where behavior correlates to disturbances of a perception of an intention.Â

···

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Martin
Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.23.14]

[philip 2019.03.10]

                  An observed relationship between the output and

the disturbance can only describe the form
f(AB). This relationship cannot be used to
describe the form f-1(AB).

           If the function f(.) is invertible, it completely

describes f-1(.), just as the form of a jigsaw piece
determines the form of the piece next to it in the puzzle.
The question is which one is responsible for the form
being what it is. The Behavioural Illusion is that the
internal processes are responsible, whereas they are
capable only of compensating for the effects between the
output and the CEV that are imposed by the external
environment.

                  These two sentences are the behavioral illusion

doctrine. Please refer to the last paragraph of
page 9 of Bill’s paper (1978):Â

                           If one

varies a distal stimulus q(d) and observes
that a measure of behavior q(o) shows
a strong regular dependence on q(d) , there is certainly
a temptation to assume that
the form of the dependence
reveals something about
the organism. Yet, the
comparison we have just
seen indicates that the
form of the dependence may
reflect only properties of
the local environment.

                    The Behavioural

Illusion is in someone’s perception that the the
form of f(AB) reflects something about f-1(AB).

                            No. There's no

illusion there. It’s just a simple fact. Whether you
call it a fact of physics or of mathematics is up to
you, but it is not an illusion.

                    The term f(AB)

reflects how the distal stimulus determines the
form of the output.

          Yes.

 The term, f-1 (AB), reflects how
the internal processes determine the form of the
output.Â

                            If you replace

“how” with “that”, you have a description of the
Behavioural Illusion in someone’s mind. Another way of
putting it is “The term f-1 (AB) determines
what the internal processes must do in order for
control to be effective, given that the environmental
function is f(AB). If a person perceives that the
internal processes produce f-1( AB) and
assumes that they do it autonomously, independently of
the external environment, that is the Behavioural
Illusion.”

                  Martin
                  On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at

2:41 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.17.23]

                          On

2018/03/10 4:45 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN wrote:

                            The behavioral illusion

doctrine states that an
experimenter cannot use an observed
relationship between the output and
the disturbance to describe a dependence
between the input and the output. Nor
can this observed relationship between
output and disturbance be used to
describe a dependence between the input
and disturbance. The purpose of this
doctrine is to prevent an experimenter
from using a shown dependence to reveal
something about the mechanisms that
produce the output.

                       Actually, this isn't correct, and

there is no “doctrine” involved. It’s a simple
requirement of control loops. The behavioural
illusion is based on a fundamental fact about
negative feedback loops that stabilize their
variables, and therefore about control loops
that control well. If there is a functional
relation f(AB) between the variation at point
A and the variation at point B going one way
around the loop, the functional relation f(BA)
going the rest of the way around the loop is
the inverse function: f(BA) = f-1(AB).

                      If "A" is the output, and "B" the CEV, the

environmental variable that corresponds to the
controlled perceptual variable, and if a
change in the CEV is taken to be a “stimulus”,
then the response (output) is determined by
the properties of the environmental link
between A and B. Those properties, which
produce f(AB), are observable, in principle,
and are not influenced by whatever happens
inside the organism. The internal mechanisms
are not observable, but they must be such as
to produce f(BA) of a specific form, that form
being f-1(AB).

                      The modelling done in simulations to analyze

the mechanisms that produce the output relies
on this fact (and on the discrepancy from f-1 (AB)
that occurs because of imperfect control). The
Behavioural Illusion is in someone’s
perception that the internal processes
determine the form of the output in a
situation for which control is good.

                          Martin


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

                              On Fri, Mar 9,

2018 at 3:04 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
wrote:

                                      [Rick

Marken 2018-03-09_15:03:56]

                                        [philip

2018.03.09]Â

                                          PY: The behavioral

illusion refers to the
fact that the behavior
[where the behavior is the
observable event we are
referring to] does not
correlate to the
controlled variable [where
the controlled variable is
the perception which is
influenced by the
behavior]. Instead, the
behavior correlates with
the disturbance [where the
disturbance is an event
that is influencing the
controlled variable
independent of the
behavior].Â

Â

                                        RM: I prefer the

definition given in our
reply paper:Â Â “…the
behavioral illusion occurs
when an observed
relationship between
variables is seen
as revealing something
about the mechanisms that
produce a behavior when,
in fact, it does not. For
example, the behavioral
illusion occurs when
“reinforcement� is seen as
“selecting� the behavior
that produced it (Marken
and Powers 1989; Yin 2013,
pp. 342–343) or when a tap
on the patellar tendon is
seen as the cause of the
knee-jerk response (Marken
2014b, p. 123). The
illusion occurs when the
behavior under study is
assumed to be that of
an open-loop, cause–effect
system when it is actually
that of a closed-loop
control system (Powers
1978)”.

Best

Rick

                                                      Richard

S. MarkenÂ

                                                      "Perfection

is achieved
not when you
have nothing
more to add,
but when you
have
nothing left
to take away.�
Â
      Â
      Â
 --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

[Rick Marken 2018-03-10_17:50:34]

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.17.23]

PY: The behavioral illusion doctrine states that an experimenter cannot use an observed relationship between the output and the disturbance to describe a dependence between the input and the output…

MT: Actually, this isn’t correct.

RM: Nor is yours.

RM: I think if you (and Alex and Bruce and…) would just read our original paper and our reply to the rebuttals non-defensively you would learn why the power law tells us nothing about the mechanisms responsible for movement production, why researchers have succumbed to the idea that it does and how you might go about doing research that would tell you something about the mechanisms responsible for movement production.

HB : Really ? And what your paper R&S is telling about »the mechanisms responsible for movement production« ???

We now know that nervous system is not the subject in »Power Law« and that Alex and Adam and others are working on it. But we also know that nervous system and functional behavior of people was the subject in your »rebutal«. And you did your job awfull. It’s the worst description of nervous system fucntioning I ever saw. But it’s springing from your twisted underdtanding of PCT which I called RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory).

Beside that you are using PCT as S-R theory. People behavior is controlled by events in external environment. Usually (0.84) people follow or chase helicopters arround the World. Did anybody see this happening ? Well it could happen that people would accompnay helicopter with thier eye movement. But I never saw anybody following the movement of helicopter. Sorry I’m laying. I saw it happened in comedy films.

What could be worse than making such distortions of PCT ?

Boris

Best

Rick

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 2:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Behav. illusions

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.11.12.24]

"Curioser and curioser". I feel as though I am talking to

Humpty-Dumpty and will soon be eating “diminish me” mushrooms or
something. Could you relate what you said in this and your last
message to something connected with PCT as it is normally
understood? Or even to everyday experience?
Martin

···

On 2018/03/11 1:31 AM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN wrote:

  When

a person sees that a perception does not cause them to have an
intention, they are conscious because their behavior is now
resisting disturbances to their intention. Consciousness is where
behavior correlates to disturbances of a perception of an
intention.Â

  On

Saturday, March 10, 2018, Martin Taylor <mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net >
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.23.31]

On 2018/03/10 11:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN wrote:

              If a person perceives that the

internal processes produce f-1( AB) and
assumes that they do it autonomously, independently of
the external environment, that is consciousness.

        Explain what that has to do with

consciousness, and whose consciousness you are talking
about, please? Also please explain how this relates to the
topic under discussion, which is the nature of the
Behavioural Illusion, and behind that, why behaviourist
(“Stimulus-Response” or “S-R”) researchers have accepted the
illusory perception as a truth about Nature.

        Martin


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

            On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 8:17 PM,

Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.23.14]

[philip 2019.03.10]

                        An observed relationship between the

output and the disturbance can only describe
the form f(AB). This relationship cannot be
used to describe the form f-1(AB).

                 If the function f(.) is invertible, it

completely describes f-1(.), just as the form of a
jigsaw piece determines the form of the piece next
to it in the puzzle. The question is which one is
responsible for the form being what it is. The
Behavioural Illusion is that the internal processes
are responsible, whereas they are capable only of
compensating for the effects between the output and
the CEV that are imposed by the external
environment.

                        These two sentences are the behavioral

illusion doctrine. Please refer to the last
paragraph of page 9 of Bill’s paper (1978):Â

                                 If

one varies a distal stimulus q(d)
and observes that a measure of behavior q(o) shows
a strong regular dependence on
q(d) ,
there is certainly a
temptation to assume that
the form of the
dependence reveals
something about the
organism. Yet, the
comparison we have
just seen indicates
that the form of the
dependence may
reflect only
properties of the
local environment.

                          The

Behavioural Illusion is in someone’s
perception that the the form of f(AB)
reflects something about f-1(AB).

                                        No. There's

no illusion there. It’s just a simple fact.
Whether you call it a fact of physics or of
mathematics is up to you, but it is not an
illusion.

                          The term

f(AB) reflects how the distal stimulus
determines the form of the output.

                Yes.

 The term, f-1 (AB), reflects
how the internal processes determine the
form of the output.Â

                                        If you

replace “how” with “that”, you have a
description of the Behavioural Illusion in
someone’s mind. Another way of putting it is
“The term f-1 (AB) determines what the
internal processes must do in order for control
to be effective, given that the environmental
function is f(AB). If a person perceives that
the internal processes produce f-1( AB)
and assumes that they do it autonomously,
independently of the external environment, that
is the Behavioural Illusion.”

                        Martin
                        On Sat, Mar 10, 2018

at 2:41 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.10.17.23]

                                On 2018/03/10 4:45 PM, PHILIP

JERAIR YERANOSIAN wrote:

                                  The behavioral

illusion doctrine states that an
experimenter cannot use an
observed relationship between the
output and the disturbance to
describe a dependence between the
input and the output. Nor can this
observed relationship between
output and disturbance be used to
describe a dependence between the
input and disturbance. The purpose
of this doctrine is to prevent an
experimenter from using a shown
dependence to reveal something
about the mechanisms that produce
the output.


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

                                    On Fri,

Mar 9, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Richard
Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
wrote:

                                            [Rick

Marken
2018-03-09_15:03:56]

                                              [philip

2018.03.09]Â

                                                PY: The

behavioral illusion
refers to the fact
that the behavior
[where the behavior
is the observable
event we are
referring to] does
not correlate to the
controlled variable
[where the
controlled variable
is the perception
which is influenced
by the behavior].Â
Instead, the
behavior correlates
with the disturbance
[where the
disturbance is an
event that is
influencing the
controlled variable
independent of the
behavior].Â

Â

                                              RM: I prefer the

definition given in
our reply paper:Â Â “…the
behavioral illusion
occurs when an
observed
relationship between
variables is seen
as revealing
something about the
mechanisms that
produce a behavior
when, in fact, it
does not. For
example,
the behavioral
illusion occurs when
“reinforcement� is
seen as “selecting�
the behavior that
produced it (Marken
and Powers 1989; Yin
2013, pp. 342–3343)
or when a tap on the
patellar tendon is
seen as the cause of
the knee-jerk
response (Marken
2014b, p. 123). The
illusion occurs when
the behavior under
study is assumed to
be that of
an open-loop,
cause–effect syystem
when it is actually
that of a
closed-loop control
system (Powers
1978)”.

Best

Rick

                                                      Richard

S. MarkenÂ

                                                      "Perfection

is achieved
not when you
have nothing
more to add,
but when you
have
nothing left
to take away.�
Â
      Â
      Â
 --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

                             Actually, this isn't correct,

and there is no “doctrine” involved.
It’s a simple requirement of control
loops. The behavioural illusion is based
on a fundamental fact about negative
feedback loops that stabilize their
variables, and therefore about control
loops that control well. If there is a
functional relation f(AB) between the
variation at point A and the variation
at point B going one way around the
loop, the functional relation f(BA)
going the rest of the way around the
loop is the inverse function: f(BA) = f-1(AB).

                            If "A" is the output, and "B" the CEV,

the environmental variable that
corresponds to the controlled perceptual
variable, and if a change in the CEV is
taken to be a “stimulus”, then the
response (output) is determined by the
properties of the environmental link
between A and B. Those properties, which
produce f(AB), are observable, in
principle, and are not influenced by
whatever happens inside the organism.
The internal mechanisms are not
observable, but they must be such as to
produce f(BA) of a specific form, that
form being f-1(AB).

                            The modelling done in simulations to

analyze the mechanisms that produce the
output relies on this fact (and on the
discrepancy from f-1 (AB) that
occurs because of imperfect control).
The Behavioural Illusion is in someone’s
perception that the internal processes
determine the form of the output in a
situation for which control is good.

                                Martin