Behavior: Controlled vs Reflexive

[From Fred Nickols (2003.07.03.1700 Eastern Time)] --

Rick Marken (2003.07.03.1330)] to Marc Abrams...

What, for example, leads you to conclude that behavior is controlled and
reflexive? I'm laboring under the assumption that behavior _is_ control; it is
controlled only when an agent is trying to control it and it is never
reflexive (a
response to an external stimulus).

Never? How about when a physician taps the patella tendon with that little
pointy-headed rubber mallet? Isn't there some reflexive behavior involved
in the leg jerking? Or are those kinds of reactions to external stimuli
not considered "behavior" under PCT?

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

[From Bill Powers (2003.07.03.1532 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (2003.07.03.1700 Eastern Time) --

How about when a physician taps the patella tendon with that little
pointy-headed rubber mallet? Isn't there some reflexive behavior involved
in the leg jerking?

That's a reaction of a closed-loop control system (muscle length control)
to a sharp and brief disturbance of the controlled variable. The hammer
stretches the tendon, which stretches the muscle, which excites the
annulospiral endings, which cause a muscle contraction tending to shorten
the muscle (an effect opposite to the initial disturbance). Because the tap
is too brief to be counteracted while it's happening, the correction comes
too late. The initial stretch is gone and the muscle tension makes the leg
kick upward.

All of the reactions commonly spoken of as "reflexes" can be interpreted as
reactions of control systems to disturbances. In most cases, the complete
control loop is known.

Best,

Bill P.

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.07.03.2158) ]

[From Bill Powers (2003.07.03.1532 MDT)]

All of the reactions commonly spoken of as "reflexes" can be interpreted

as

reactions of control systems to disturbances. In most cases, the complete
control loop is known.

I think it can also be interpreted to be for an initial instant, or some
very short time span, you are not controlling. Meaning, no active feedback
is taking place. Of course that is very quickly remedied. It is a known
physiological fact that what we think is continuous is not. Our
consciousness and perceptions are not continuous. Our introspection cannot
see it or feel it. It seems seamless but it is not. We also cannot perceive
the mean kinetic energy of the air, i.e. the moving molecules. But when we
say we feel warm we actually are feeling a high mean kinetic movement of air
molecules.

Marc

[From Fred Nickols (2003.07.04.0555 EDT)] --

Bill Powers (2003.07.03.1532 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (2003.07.03.1700 Eastern Time) --

How about when a physician taps the patella tendon with that little
pointy-headed rubber mallet? Isn't there some reflexive behavior involved
in the leg jerking?

That's a reaction of a closed-loop control system (muscle length control)
to a sharp and brief disturbance of the controlled variable.

<snip>

All of the reactions commonly spoken of as "reflexes" can be interpreted as
reactions of control systems to disturbances. In most cases, the complete
control loop is known.

Thanks. Right after posting my question it occurred to me that what you
say above would be the PCT explanation.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

[From Rick Marken (2003.07.04.0930)]

Marc Abrams (2003.07.03.2158)--

> Bill Powers (2003.07.03.1532 MDT)

> All of the reactions commonly spoken of as "reflexes" can be interpreted
> as reactions of control systems to disturbances. In most cases, the
complete
> control loop is known.

I think it can also be interpreted to be for an initial instant, or some
very short time span, you are not controlling.

But then you would have to explain how the system know to control during this
"initial instant" when the disturbance is applied more gently. Since both the
"reflex" behavior seen with an abrupt disturbance and the "non-reflex"
(control) behavior seen with a gradual disturbance are perfectly explained as
control of input, it seems to me to be rather "retro" to introduce the deus ex
machina of an "initial instant" of non-control just to protect the idea that
some behaior is reflexive (S-R).

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.07.04.1927) ]

Hope you don't mind I combined your two posts together

[From Rick Marken (2003.07.04.0930)]

But then you would have to explain how the system know to control during

this

"initial instant"

Sorry, It's intrinsic, 'Control' kicks in right after you become "aware" (
not always conscious ) of the ratio difference. 'Disturbances' effect the
on-going ability to control. The _initial reactio nis reflexive, intrinsic,
and emotional. Yes Rick It's hand waving, But no more or lesss then your
model. Mine has some basis in phsiological fact and experimentation, which I
both trust and believe. I do not state these things as scientific facts.
They are conjectures. Conjectures I feel comfortable with. I am only telling
you this because you made a statement that was inaccurate.

when the disturbance is applied more gently.

How can a disturbance be applied to something that doesn't exist?

What does a 'disturbance' look like in the brain?

Since both the
"reflex" behavior seen with an abrupt disturbance and the "non-reflex"
(control) behavior seen with a gradual disturbance are perfectly explained

as

control of input, it seems to me to be rather "retro" to introduce the

deus ex

machina of an "initial instant" of non-control just to protect the idea

that

some behaior is reflexive (S-R).

You can believe what you want to believe. I have no problem with it. This
list I believe is down to 96 and counting. Last man standing wins. :slight_smile:

[From Rick Marken (2003.07.04.0950)]

I have been doing this for the last 25 year.

I don't care how long you've been doing this. They thought the world was
flat for thousands of years.

By I do it by testing models against data.
I don't do it by reading books written by presumed authorities --

You should, you actually might start knowing something of what your talking
about. Since you have probably been out of college for 30+ years and
probably took no biology or physiology courses after, you might want to take
a refresher courses in bio & physiology. You can model one hell of a control
system, you just can't model human 'behavior'. Aspects of it yes, all of it,
no way.

If you really want to help out with the development of PCT...

No, I'm not interested in helping 'with the development' PCT. You, Bill, and
some folks here on CSGnet got it all figured out. In my due diligence in
doing the HPCT stress experiment I stumbled across some interesting _new_
info. You people don't want to hear about it.

then I would
strongly suggest that you take Isaac's excellent advice and do some

modeling

and/or research to test the model.

I will certainly endeavor to do that. Yes it was good advice. I would like
to know what Isaac has done with the resources he has at his disposal at
Brandeis? Of course I don't know if he would want to possibly hurt his
chances of getting his doctorate.

The one person who I know who actually put his career on the line for PCT
got shafted from both ends.

This list would make the Davidians, and Jim Jones proud.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2003.07.04.2300)]

>Marc Abrams (2003.07.04.1927)--

>Rick Marken (2003.07.04.0930)--

> But then you would have to explain how the system know to control during
> this "initial instant"

Sorry, It's intrinsic, 'Control' kicks in right after you become "aware" (
not always conscious ) of the ratio difference. 'Disturbances' effect the
on-going ability to control. The _initial reactio nis reflexive, intrinsic,
and emotional. Yes Rick It's hand waving, But no more or lesss then your
model. Mine has some basis in phsiological fact and experimentation, which I
both trust and believe. I do not state these things as scientific facts.
They are conjectures. Conjectures I feel comfortable with. I am only telling
you this because you made a statement that was inaccurate.

There is just no substitute for this kind of help, Marc. Thanks.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313