···
Martin Taylor (2015.10.25.00.05)–
MT: FWIW, I agree with everything Rick says in this message.
RM: I love to have you agreeing with me but I’m afraid that in this case you are doing it for the wrong reason. You seem to think that what I was saying is that “… “behaviour” is the action that influences a controlled perception”. But that’s not what I am saying at all. What I’m saying is that words, like “adjusting an audiometer”, that point to something we can see a person doing, are pointing to a control phenomenon, which involves a controlled variable, a reference state for that variable, the actions (means) used to bring the controlled variable to the reference state and disturbances that make certain means necessary. I think this is all communicated best by Table 1, p. 172 pf LCS I and by the extended version of that table in the form of my “Behavior as Control” spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JmS6tOjt_nvrpmD5sGySwup0ZZCU_hYtZqlHxW80dME/edit#gid=0
RM: The column labeled “behavior” is just the word or words we use to describe something we can see a person doing. The remaining columns – labeled Controlled Variables, Reference States, Means and Disturbances – describe this behavior in terms of the observable components of the phenomenon of control. The goal of the spreadsheet (and Table 1) is to teach us to see the events we refer to as behaviors are control phenomena, in fact, not in theory.Â
RM: Again, I highly recommend that people read pp. 171-176 in LCS I to get an idea of what I am trying to do with the spreadsheet. What Powers is doing in that section of LCS I is giving a non-theoretical description of behavior as a control phenomenon. There is no theory in that section. All the aspects of behavior that he discusses in that section – the ones listed in the columns of Table 1 and in the Behavior as Control spreadsheet – are empirically observable variables and their relationships. Even the reference state of a controlled variable is observable. As Bill says on p. 175 “The existence of these reference states is not conjectural; once a behavior has been defined in terms of an appropriate variable [controlled variable – RM], such reference states always exist. They can be discovered experimentally and defined in terms of observable relationships”.[emphasis mine – RM]
RM: The point of this Behavior as Control spreadsheet exercise is to show that what we refer to as the behavior of living organisms is control (it involves acting to control variables, maintaining them in reference states), in fact, not just in theory. As Bill goes on to explain (in the second paragraph on p. 176) control theory provides the explanation for the existence of reference states of controlled variables. So I think it’s really necessary to understand the phenomenon that PCT explains – behavior as control – before on can understand the PCT explanation of that phenomenon. So my “Behavior as Control” spreadsheet is an attempt to start a non-theoretical discussion of the nature of behavior as control.Â
RM: I really think understanding behavior as control is fundamentally important to understanding PCT because I have seen that it is possible to have an excellent, technical understanding of control theory with no understanding of how to correctly apply it to understanding the behavior of living systems. This is what has happened in the field of “manual control” or “engineering psychology” where we have people with an excellent understanding control theory who are applying that theory, incorrectly, by using it to explain behavior as an input-output phenomenon. Powers major epiphany was the realization that behavior IS control. This allowed him to apply control theory (which had already been around for quite some time; Powers did not invent control theory) correctly to understanding the behavior (controlling) of living organisms.
RM: I think a good way to get a feel for behavior as a control phenomenon is to add a few behaviors to the “Behavior as Control” spreadsheet and try to analyze those behaviors in terms of the variables involved in control – Controlled Variables, Reference States, Means and Disturbances.
BestÂ
Rick
In the "driving a car" example, "driving the car" may be a behaviour
that influences the driver’s perception of her location, for which
the reference might be “at the office”. Doing the work at the office
might be a behaviour that (ultimately) influences her controlled
perception of the amount of money she has available. And so forth.
The PCT mantra is “all behaviour is the control of perception” which
is essentially the title of B:CP, but it can be turned around to say
“to control a perception is to behave”, and that applies to all
perceptions (even if the behaviour is unobservably in the person’s
imagination).
Martin
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
 FN:
 I pointed out to him that there is no such
behavior as âadjusting an audiometer.â?Â
RM: The term "behavior" is not a technical term. It
just refers to things we see people “doing”. I believe
most people would be comfortable calling “adjusting an
audiometer” something that people do: that it’s a
behavior.Â
FN:
 I said âGrasp the volume knobâ? might be a
behavior.Â
RM: Yes, it is. Just as much as "adjusting the
audiometer" is a behavior; it is something people do. And
both of these behaviors can be see as examples of control:
there is a CV, reference state for the CV, a means of
bringing the CV to the reference while protecting it from
disturbance and disturbances that require that the means
be varied appropriately to bring the CV to and maintain it
in the reference state. How about  trying to put these two
behaviors into the Behavior as Control spreadsheet at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JmS6tOjt_nvrpmD5sGySwup0ZZCU_hYtZqlHxW80dME/edit#gid=0
I’ve already entered the behavior names for you.Â
Â
FN:
So might be âTurn the volume knob to the right
until the meter indicates zero decibels.â?Â
RM: What you have done in this sentence is named the
means, cv and reference for the behavior we call “adjust
the audiometer”. All that’s missing is one (or more)
possible disturbances.Â
Â
FN:
I said that as an observer I could tell if someone
were grasping the volume knob or turning it but I
had no way of knowing that what someone was doing
was âadjustingâ? the audiometer.
RM: But now you do, with PCT. They are acting to bring
a perceptual variable – the controlled variable – to a
reference state. Of course, to know precisely what
variable is being controlled you would have to use the
Test.Â
Â
FN:
The importance of that distinction then and nnow
is the distinction between actions and outcomes. An
outcome, such as an audiometer that is ready for
use, ties to the value of some variable âout thereâ?
in this case, the readiness of the audiometerr for
use. The specific behaviors involved in getting it
ready can and do vary, depending in part on the user
to which it is to be put.
 RM: Right, behavior involves taking actions (often
also called “behaviors” themselves) to produce a
per-selected outcome (the reference state of a controlled
variable); in this case the controlled variable is the
state of the audiometer – presumably the volume setting
of the audiometer – and the reference state of that
variable is zero db and you get it and keep it in that
state by turning the volume knob appropriately (the
action).
Â
FN:
Enter now PCT. The reference condition being sought
is an audiometer ready for use. The behavior of the
person readying it can vary widely and wildly but
the end state remains the same.
 RM: Here you are using the word "behavior" to refer to
the actions that get the controlled variable to the
reference state. Those actions are, indeed, behaviors
themselves but when we are talking about the controlling
involved in the behavior that involves those actions –
adjusting the audiometer in this case – it’s better to
use the term “action” (or “means”) to describe them.Â
Â
FN:
Now back to the original thread. Is âdriving a carâ?
a behavior? I could argue yes and I could argue
no. At best, itâs one of those patterned
behaviors. Is âdepressing the brake pedalâ? a
behavior? I think so. Is âgrasp the steering
wheelâ? a behavior? Again, I think so. Is
âacceleratingâ? a behavior? I think not. Thatâs
something the car not the driver is doing. Is
âdepressing the gas pedalâ? a behavior? I think so.Â
Is âchanging lanesâ? a behavior? I think not.Â
Again, thatâs something the car is doing.
RM: These are all behaviors as long as they are what a
person does. I agree that “accelerating” and “changing
lanes” might not be behaviors, but that would be true only
if the car does them on its own. And cars do do these
things on their own; a car with an incapacitated driver
will change lanes on it’s own (to the considerable
detriment of the driver) Â and one with a poorly programmed
cruise control system could accelerate on its own. But we
are talking about a person driving a car so it is implied
that the person is doing the lane changes and the
acceleration/deceleration. So I would say
that “accelerating” and "changing lanes" are both
behaviors; things a person does. And, of course, all of
the behaviors described above are examples of control –
there is a CV, a reference state for that variable (the
“outcome” produced), a means of producing that outcome in
the face of disturbances that would otherwise prevent it
and, of course, the disturbances themselves.Â
FN:
P.S. I got so excited by Bruce Nevinâs review of
Rickâs book that I ordered a copy. In my excitement
I forgot I already had it. Now I guess Iâll have to
read it.
RM: Well, if nothing else it will make up for the one
that Boris is not going to get;-) Sorry it cost you, Fred,
but thanks for getting it anyway.
Best regards
Rick
Â
From:
Rupert Young [mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com ]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 3:44
PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Examples of everyday
control (was Re: Somebody should take this on)
Â
[From Rupert Young (2015.10.22
21.00)]
(Rick Marken (2015.09.27.1250)
Â
Rupert Young
(2015.09.25 20.00)–
(Rick Marken
(2015.09.23.1215)]
RM:Â The "Action" column is also identified
as being the equivalent to the reference for
the lower level perception (for example, to
take a sip of tea you have to set a
reference for perceiving the cup moved to
your lips).
How about "Sub-goal" instead of "Action", as
a reference is a goal rather than an action?
If we are talking about the reference at the
next level down, this could enable us to
think about the all the controlled variables
going down the hierarchy.
Â
RM: Sure. I've added it
and attached the slightly revised
spreadsheet. But I’ve keep “Action” too
because the references set by higher level
systems for lower level systems are the
actions taken by the former to achieve their
perceptual goals. In PCT, “action” at all
levels (except for the lowest – intensity
– level) are specifications for input, not
commands for output.
May I make a few other structural suggestions,
before I start adding records? “Sub-goal” and
“Action” seem different, so maybe both would be
appropriate, in different columns. “Action” suggests
something happening now, whereas a sub-goal may
extend over a long period of time (days, months
etc). Also “Action” suggests, err, action, in that
something, in the world, is actually being moved or
manipulated, and doesn’t really correspond to
outputs setting sub-goals, where there might not
actually be any action (action column might be
blank).
With the "Behavior" column being at the beginning
(left) it seems that behavior is given prominence
whereas perhaps prominence should be given to the
controlled variable. As it is the controlled
variable which is part of the system and should be
the focus of discussion and analysis, whereas
behaviour is the observed side effect of perceptual
control. In other words have the “behavior” (and
action) column on the right hand side. Then the
spreadsheet would be organised by a single
controlled variable (column “Controlled Variable”
rather than “Controlled Variable(s)”).
I can see that the spreadsheet could get quite
unwieldy as it grows and see a use for a grouping
column in addition to “Type” and “Behavior”, to help
users find if their suggestion already exists and to
see the different goals/behaviours involved in a
higher goal. A particular behaviour is likely to
involve controlled variables at a number of
different levels and this would useful for grouping
different entries together. E.g. driving involves
Opening a car door, Fastening seat belt, Depressing
clutch etc. So an additional column with an entry of
“Driving” might be useful for this. It could be
called something like “Group” or “Domain” or
“Purpose”.
RM: So how about adding
some more examples of behavior (or, if you
must, behaviour) to the spreadsheet!
Have been compiling some which I was going to send
with this, but they are taking some time so will
send later when done.
Rupert
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
www.mindreadings.com
Author of  [Doing Research on Purpose](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Doing-2DResearch-2DPurpose-2DExperimental-2DPsychology_dp_0944337554_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1407342866-26sr-3D8-2D1-26keywords-3Ddoing-2Bresearch-2Bon-2Bpurpose&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=mUAKhMPx0AvADdWrEgn9if93VwTZBefVsjjeB4WnnPY&s=LJiMZJRE4gLed61n7hsAyTO6l0-hUICr06SbPKrpg4Q&e=).Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes &
Noble
if you would just add a few rows (behaviors) to the "Behavior as Control spreadsheet: