I think that Philip deserves an answer on the level of PCT not RCT.
···
From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 5:53 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: “behavior is control”
philip 6/17 17:00
PY: I wish to make a comment on the statement “behavior is control” by objecting to the use of the term behavior. Behavior is also used to refer to events involving non-living phenomena (i.e. the behavior of a gas). Perhaps, we shouldn’t refer to what living things do as behavior. Perhaps we should refer to it simply as control. For instance, PCT does not describe human behavior, it describes control. That way, we could avoid introducing the statement “behavior is control” by argument. Is this a good suggestion?
RM: I think it would be better (if there is any concern about what behavior is being spoken of) to just say that “the behavior of living systems is control”.
HB : I thought that Rick became more sensitive for Bills’s definitions, but obviously Rick is again with his RCT and “behavior is control”.
Bill P. (B:CP, Preface) :
Rather, the central problem has been to find out a plausible model which can behave at all…. For example it will be shown later that the brain does not command the muscles to act. That concept implies properties that the neuromuscular system simply does not have… There is just no way the brain can select a muscle tension that will produce one and only one behavioral effect, even if that tension is accurately produced. The result of this approcah is a model nearly devoid of specific behavioral content.
HB : The central problem of PCT is not that we can control behavior and thus some environmental variable to some “reference state” as Rick is doing. In this way he can’t explain myriad of behaviors.
The central problem of PCT is how organisms produce “uncontrolled effects” to environment which cause some consistent “controlled” results in organism and thus we can explain all behaviors. Rick just don’t want or don’t understand PCT.
Control is going on in organism not outside. So all problems in PCT has to be seen through “glasses” of basic definition of control in organisms.
Bill P :
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : Rick promised that he wiil start to explore “purposes” of LCS what could mean that he could be in accordance to PCT definition of control. Purposes (goals, references) are something that organisms produce inside, so they are products of internal organization of organism (nervous system). And I’m asking myself where Rick saw in Bills’ experimental methods any trace that purposes of people or “what they control” can be seen from the aspect of their “controlled behavior” ???
Bill P (B:CP):
The TCV is method for identifying control organization of nervous system….
There will be ambiguous cases : the disturbance may be only weakly opposed. That effect could be due not to poor control system but to a definition of actions that are only remotely linked to the actual controlled quantity.
For example : if when you open the window I sometimes get up and close it, you might conclude that I am controlling the position of the window when in fact I only shut it if the room gets too chilly to suit me. I could be controlling sensed temperature very precisely, when necesarry, but by a variety of means : shutting the window, turning up the termostat, putting on a sweater, or exercising. You are on the track of the right controlled quantity, but haven’t got the right definition yet. It is safest to assume that an ambiguous result from TCV is the fault of the hypotehsis and to continue looking for a better definition of the controlled quantity.
HB : As I see it it’s obviously that TCV is meant to search for “controlled quantity” inside organism (control organization of nervous system) not analysing what people “control” with behavior outside for ex. oppening or shutting the window. Shall I repeat it again ? PCT definition of control is inside organisms not outside.
Bill P :
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : We try to guess what people are controlling inside. I’ll expose good Rupert’s example :
EP : It is the subject’s behavior that examined for the purpose of making a guess toward determining what might be the ‘controlled quantity.’
RY : Suppose you want to confirm if someone is controlling their perception of the temperature of the water in the shower. As an experimenter you are able to inject cold water into the system to disturb the water temperature. Do you confirm your hypothesis by examining the turning of the water mixer tap (the behaviour) or by examining the water temperature (the controlled quantity)?
HB : Behavior doesn’t show what exactly people are controlling. It’s obviously in Rupert’s case that someone is cotrolling perception of the temperature of the water whether it suits him or not. Behavior of “oppening and shutting pipes” are actions that are only remotely linked to the actual controlled quantity. At least in PCT the TCV method is used for that purpose.
And Rick all the time promotes “control of behavior” and control of some “controlled variable” in environment which could show him what people are controlling. But experimental methods in PCT are not meant for that purpose. And I don’t see how “control of behavior” and outer variables is connected with PCT experimental methods.
From “controlled behavior” we can’t find much because behavior consists from “uncontroled actions” which have to be explored to find out more about how nervous system function not to find out what “controlled variables” are “controlled” in outer environment with “control of behavior”. That’s simply what PCT is not about.
Boris
–
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