Behavioural Illusion

[Abbott]

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.10.08.1620 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2017.10.08.1100) –

RM: In psychological experiments the experimenter manipulates a variable that they know they are manipulating that is quite visible; it’s called the independent variable. From a PCT perspective, this variable is a disturbance to a controlled variable; it’s the controlled variable that is not known to or seen by the experimenter.

RM: Variations in the controlled variable are not what is seen as “stimuli”. What experimenters see as stimuli are the independent variables they manipulate, which a PCT researcher understands to be disturbances to controlled variables.

BA: An independent variable is a variable that an experimenter manipulates (changing its value); a dependent variable is a variable that an experimenter observes to determine whether it varies as a function of the value of the independent variable. Stimuli can be manipulated in an experiment, in which case they serve as independent variables. But stimuli may also be held constant during an experiment, in which case they do not serve as independent variables. Moreover, independent variables are not necessarily stimuli. For example, one might vary the dose of a drug or the time between presentation of a nonsense syllable and the signal to try to recall it. Dose and time thus serve as independent variables but they are not stimuli.

BA: It is also not the case that all independent variables or stimuli have whatever observable effects they produce by acting as a disturbance to some controlled perception. I may be less likely to notice a tone if it is presented against a background of white noise, but the noise is affecting a perceptual discrimination, not necessarily disturbing a controlled variable.

RM: For example, take a classic social psychology experiment on “conformity”. Subjects are shown two lines of identical length and asked which is longer. They do this in groups where all members of the group except the subject are cohorts of the experimenter. All these cohorts say that the lower line is longer than the upper one. The dependent variable is whether the subject goes along with the group and says the lower line is longer or not (that’s the measure of “conformity”).

RM: One of the independent variables that has been manipulated in experiments on conformity is the number of people in the cohort group. What is found is that the more people in the cohort group the more likely it is for a subject to conform (agree with the group). The conventional interpretation of this is that increases in the size of the cohort group cause increases in conformity. The PCT interpretation of this is that the size of the cohort group is a disturbance to a controlled variable and conformity is an action that compensates for this disturbance. The controlled var iable is probably something like “being seen as an oddball”. If a subject’s reference for this variable is very low – they don’t want to be seen as an oddball at all – then they will conform even if there is only one cohort present; subjects with a very high reference for this variable - who don’t care about being seen as an oddball – won’t conform even if there are many cohorts disagreeing with them.

RM: So PCT explains the apparent effect of the independent variable (number of cohorts) on the dependent variable (conformity) as control of an input variable; it’s not number of cohorts causing the subject to conform; it is the subject controlling for not being seen as an oddball. And it explains the statistical relationship between independent and dependent variable that is found in these experiments as being a result of different subjects having different references for being seen as an oddball.

BA: I like your interpretation of the results of this experiment, although of course it requires experimental confirmation. However, even if your explanation is correct, it does not invalidate the original finding; rather, it explains it. As you note, it also offers a potential explanation for why some individuals’ willingness to conform is strongly affected by the number of cohorts, others less so, and perhaps others still, not at all.

Bruce

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.09.1812)]

···

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.08.1620 EDT)

Â

Rick Marken (2017.10.08.1100) –

Â

BA: An independent variable is a variable that an experimenter manipulates (changing its value)…Stimuli can be manipulated in an experiment, in which case they serve as independent variables. But stimuli may also be held constant during an experiment, in which case they do not serve as independent variables. Moreover, independent variables are not necessarily stimuli. For example, one might vary the dose of a drug or the time between presentation of a nonsense syllable and the signal to try to recall it. Dose and time thus serve as independent variables but they are not stimuli.

RM: It’s ok with me if you want to distinguish “stimuli” from “independent variables” but to me it’s a difference that makes no difference. Both terms refer to variable aspects of the environment that are potential disturbances to the variables subjects in experiments are asked to control.

Â

BA: It is also not the case that all independent variables or stimuli have whatever observable effects they produce by acting as a disturbance to some controlled perception.Â

RM: If this were true then PCT would have to be either rejected or seriously revised. According to PCT the only reason independent variables (or stimuli) have whatever observable effects they appear to have on behavior (dependent variables) is because they are a disturbance to a controlled variable.Â

BA: I may be less likely to notice a tone if it is presented against a background of white noise, but the noise is affecting a perceptual discrimination, not necessarily disturbing a controlled variable.

RM: If you’re just talking about the effect of the noise on the perception of a passively observed tone then the noise is not disturbing a controlled variable because the perception of the tone in noise is not being controlled. But in signal detection experiments the noise is most definitely disturbing a variable the subject is controlling (if they are following instructions)) and that’s why the subject responds to the tone-noise stimuli.Â

RM: In the simplest detection experiment the subject is asked to say “yes” if a tone is present in the noise burst and “no” if not. So the subject is controlling for a logical relationship between the perception of tone+noise or noise only and their behavior, which is saying “yes” or “no”. The relationship perception being controlled is something like "if (tone+noise) then say “yes” else say “no”. The noise is a disturbance to this perception because it affects whether what is perceived is tone+noise or noise only. If the subject were not controlling for this logical relationship they would probably say nothing whether what was heard was tone+noise or noise alone. There is no causal path from noise bursts (the disturbance) to saying “yes” or “no”. I found this to be true in my thesis research. Virtually none of the subejcts said “yes” or “no” to the tone bursts I presented to them until they were instructed to have the purpose of doing so. Â

RM: So PCT explains the apparent effect of the independent variable (number of cohorts) on the dependent variable (conformity) as control of an input variable; it’s not number of cohorts causing the subject to conform; it is the subject controlling for not being seen as an oddball. And it explains the statistical relationship between independent and dependent variable that is found in these experiments as being a result of different subjects having different references for being seen as an oddball.

Â

BA: I like your interpretation of the results of this experiment, although of course it requires experimental confirmation.Â

RM: You betcha. And the only way to confirm (or reject) my interpretation is by doing the test for the controlled variable. This involves doing psychological experiments in a new way. We still manipulate IVs (disturbances) under controlled conditions. But we typically look for lack of effect of these IVs on the hypothesized controlled variable (CV). Once you have found that the subject is controlling a particular variable (CV) you know how the subject will respond to many different IVs because these responses (DV) will have to precisely counter the effects of the IV on the CV. Perhaps this approach to research could be called IV-CV where the aim is to find lack of effect of several different IVs on the experimenter’s definition of the CV.Â

RM: This kind of research can also be done with modeling, as I did in the object interception research, where I found the best definition of the CV by finding which definition of the CV, when placed in the model, gives the best fit to the actual behavior of the pursuer.Â

BA: However, even if your explanation is correct, it does not invalidate the original finding; rather, it explains it.Â

RM: Findings aren’t invalidated; the explanations of the findings are. Bill’s demonstration of the behavioral illusion just invalidates the explanation of the findings as being “increases in the number of cohorts causes an increase in conformity”. In fact, the number of cohorts doesn’t cause an increase conformity; it only seems to when the subject is controlling for a perception like “not being seen as an oddball”. Once you know what people are controlling for – their purposes – you know a lot about why certain environmental variables appear to have an effect on their “behavior” – their “behavior” being the actions that prevent these disturbance variables from having an effect on the variables being controlled.

Â

BA: As you note, it also offers a potential explanation for why some individuals’ willingness to conform is strongly affected by the number of cohorts, others less so, and perhaps others still, not at all.

RM: Yes, that’s because PCT research is “single subject”; many subjects may be tested but the behavior of each is analyzed individually. This is the one good thing about operant research; it is typically single-subject.Â

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

[Abbott]

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.10.10.1015 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2017.10.09.1812) –

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.08.1620 EDT)

Rick Marken (2017.10.08.1100) –

BA: An independent variable is a variable that an experimenter manipulates (changing its value)…Stimuli can be manipulated in an experiment, in which case they serve as independent variables. But stimuli may also be held constant during an experiment, in which case they do not serve as independent variables. Moreover, independent variables are not necessarily stimuli. For example, one might vary the dose of a drug or the time between presentation of a nonsense syllable and the signal to try to recall it. Dose and time thus serve as independent variables but they are not stimuli.

RM: It’s ok with me if you want to distinguish “stimuli” from “independent variables” but to me it’s a difference that makes no difference. Both terms refer to variable aspects of the environment that are potential disturbances to the variables subjects in experiments are asked to control.

BA:Â I understand that this is your position.

BA: It is also not the case that all independent variables or stimuli have whatever observable effects they produce by acting as a disturbance to some controlled perception.

RM: If this were true then PCT would have to be either rejected or seriously revised. According to PCT the only reason independent variables (or stimuli) have whatever observable effects they appear to have on behavior (dependent variables) is because they are a disturbance to a controlled variable.

BA: I appreciate the point. According to PCT, behavior is driven by error in a controlled perception, so the experiment must have created a disturbance to some controlled variable. But does the CV that is disturbed by the manipulation necessarily the same variable that is under investigation? The answer is “no.�

BA: I may be less likely to notice a tone if it is presented against a background of white noise, but the noise is affecting a perceptual discrimination, not necessarily disturbing a controlled variable.

RM: If you’re just talking about the effect of the noise on the perception of a passively observed tone then the noise is not disturbing a controlled variable because the perception of the tone in noise is not being controlled. But in signal detection experiments the noise is most definitely disturbing a variable the subject is controlling (if they are following instructions)) and that’s why the subject responds to the tone-noise stimuli.

RM: In the simplest detection experiment the subject is asked to say “yes” if a tone is present in the noise burst and “no” if not. So the subject is controlling for a logical relationship between the perception of tone+noise or noise only and their behavior, which is saying “yes” or “no”. The relationship perception being controlled is something like "if (tone+noise) then say “yes” else say “no”. The noise is a disturbance to this perception because it affects whether what is perceived is tone+noise or noise only. If the subject were not controlling for this logical relationship they would probably say nothing whether what was heard was tone+noise or noise alone. There is no causal path from noise bursts (the disturbance) to saying “yes” or “no”. I found this to be true in my thesis research. Virtually none of the subejcts said “yes” or “no” to the tone bursts I presented to them until they were instructed to have the purpose of doing so.

BA: I concur with your point that, under PCT, any observed behavior must result from the action of a control system. In this example the control system is set up to have the participant tell the experimenter whether or not she judges that the tone was or was not present. But the presence or absence of the tone is not the independent variable in this experiment, even though the tone’s perceived presence or absence may disturb a perception of a relationship between what is perceived and what is reported. In signal detection experiments the independent variable might be the proportion of trials on which the signal (i.e., the tone) is presented with the noise. The participant is exposed to a large block of trials at a given proportion before being exposed to the next block having a different proportion. This manipulation is intended to alter the participant’s “response bias,� or willingness to say “yes� when uncertain. The analysis of the data yields what is called a “receiver operating characteristic� (ROC) curve that reveals the participant’s sensitivity to the tone, i.e., ability to detect the tone against the noisy background. The sensitivity curve is not the inverse of the feedback function of the relationship control system, but a measure of the participant’s ability to detect the signal, given the level of noise present. Thus is it not an example of the behavioral illusion.

Bruce

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.11.1745)]

···

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.10.1015 EDT)–

BA: I appreciate the point. According to PCT, behavior is driven by error in a controlled perception, so the experiment must have created a disturbance to some controlled variable. But does the CV that is disturbed by the manipulation necessarily the same variable that is under investigation? The answer is “no.â€?

RM: That’s correct. The CV is never under investigation. Conventional psychologists don’t even know it exists. That’s the problem!!Â

Â

BA: … In signal detection experiments the independent variable might be the proportion of trials on which the signal (i.e., the tone) is presented with the noise. The participant is exposed to a large block of trials at a given proportion before being exposed to the next block having a different proportion… The analysis of the data yields what is called a “receiver operating characteristicâ€? (ROC) curve that reveals the participant’s sensitivity to the tone…The sensitivity curve is not the inverse of the feedback function of the relationship control system, but a measure of the participant’s ability to detect the signal, given the level of noise present. Thus is it not an example of the behavioral illusion.

RM: That’s right. From a control theory perspective the d’ measure of sensitivity is a measure of how well the subject is able to control the controlled variable – the logical relationship between tone presence or not and saying “yes” or “no”. This relationship can be better controlled (d’ will be large) the greater the S/N ratio of tone to noise energy.

RM: An interesting implication of this is that the Weber-Fechner approach to determining sensitivity to difference in stimulus magnitudes (just noticeable differences, jnd’s) – where the data is a measure of the subject’s ability to correctly say whether or not there is a difference between the stimuli – is a better approach to doing psychophysics that is the magnitude estimation approach – where the data is a measure of the functional relationship between stimulus magnitude and response magnitude. So Steven’s “power law”, which is obtained via magnitude estimation, is another example of a behavioral illusion (as is the similarly named power law of movement-- though they are illusions for different reasons (see my paper on Steven’s power law “illusion” here: http://www.mindreadings.com/BehavioralIllusion.pdf)

RM: I think this will be my last post on the behavioral illusion. We’ve been having this argument for over 20 years and I doubt that I’m going to convince you now. And I also think I’m not convincing anyone who might be listening to exchange; I’m pretty sure the crowd is on your (and Martin’s) side. But, again, the discussion has been worth it to me because it has clarified my own thoughts about the behavioral illusion and, given how important I think it is, I think I will try to write an article or book on it. But here is a brief summary of what I think the behavioral illusion is about.Â

RM: The behavioral illusion refers to the fact that the behavior of a control system can appear to be that of an open-loop causal system, such as the one that scientific psychologists imagine themselves to be studying. Bill Powers described this illusion to show why scientific psychologists have continued to study behavior as though it were caused output. It’s not because they are stupid or crazy; it’s because the behavior of a control system looks that way; it looks like responses (dependent variables) are caused by stimuli (independent variables). It’s very much analogous to the reason why scientists persistent in developing geocentric models of the behavior of the planets. It wasn’t just because of religious preferences; it was also because it looks that way. It looks like the sun, moon and planets are going around a stationary earth. It took a brave imagination for a scientist to realize that what they were seeing might be an illusion created by the fact that they are standing on a rotating globe. Similarly, it took a brave imagination for William T. Powers to realize that what scientific psychologists were seeing was not stimuli causing responses but ,rather, a side effect of the process of control of perceptual input; protecting with their responses the disturbing effect of stimuli on controlled variables. In Copernicus and Galileo’s time, strong resistance to the idea that the geocentric model of the solar system was based on an illusion came mainly from the religious establishment; in Powers’ time, strong resistance to the idea that the lineal causal model of behavior was based on an illusion came from the social/behavioral/life science establishment. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

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

[wmansell]

Hi Rick, I am interested in this because I am in the process of developing a volume control continuous tracking task. I had thought, especially after reading Casting Nets that there is a constant in the power law formula that is specific to the individual carrying out the task? I want to test if this is isometric with the gain parameter in the closed loop volume control system…

Warren

···

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.10.1015 EDT)–

BA: I appreciate the point. According to PCT, behavior is driven by error in a controlled perception, so the experiment must have created a disturbance to some controlled variable. But does the CV that is disturbed by the manipulation necessarily the same variable that is under investigation? The answer is “no.�

RM: That’s correct. The CV is never under investigation. Conventional psychologists don’t even know it exists. That’s the problem!!

BA: … In signal detection experiments the independent variable might be the proportion of trials on which the signal (i.e., the tone) is presented with the noise. The participant is exposed to a large block of trials at a given proportion before being exposed to the next block having a different proportion… The analysis of the data yields what is called a “receiver operating characteristicâ€? (ROC) curve that reveals the participant’s sensitivity to the tone…The sensitivity curve is not the inverse of the feedback function of the relationship control system, but a measure of the participant’s ability to detect the signal, given the level of noise present. Thus is it not an example of the behavioral illusion.

RM: That’s right. From a control theory perspective the d’ measure of sensitivity is a measure of how well the subject is able to control the controlled variable – the logical relationship between tone presence or not and saying “yes” or “no”. This relationship can be better controlled (d’ will be large) the greater the S/N ratio of tone to noise energy.

RM: An interesting implication of this is that the Weber-Fechner approach to determining sensitivity to difference in stimulus magnitudes (just noticeable differences, jnd’s) – where the data is a measure of the subject’s ability to correctly say whether or not there is a difference between the stimuli – is a better approach to doing psychophysics that is the magnitude estimation approach – where the data is a measure of the functional relationship between stimulus magnitude and response magnitude. So Steven’s “power law”, which is obtained via magnitude estimation, is another example of a behavioral illusion (as is the similarly named power law of movement-- though they are illusions for different reasons (see my paper on Steven’s power law “illusion” here: http://www.mindreadings.com/BehavioralIllusion.pdf)

RM: I think this will be my last post on the behavioral illusion. We’ve been having this argument for over 20 years and I doubt that I’m going to convince you now. And I also think I’m not convincing anyone who might be listening to exchange; I’m pretty sure the crowd is on your (and Martin’s) side. But, again, the discussion has been worth it to me because it has clarified my own thoughts about the behavioral illusion and, given how important I think it is, I think I will try to write an article or book on it. But here is a brief summary of what I think the behavioral illusion is about.

RM: The behavioral illusion refers to the fact that the behavior of a control system can appear to be that of an open-loop causal system, such as the one that scientific psychologists imagine themselves to be studying. Bill Powers described this illusion to show why scientific psychologists have continued to study behavior as though it were caused output. It’s not because they are stupid or crazy; it’s because the behavior of a control system looks that way; it looks like responses (dependent variables) are caused by stimuli (independent variables). It’s very much analogous to the reason why scientists persistent in developing geocentric models of the behavior of the planets. It wasn’t just because of religious preferences; it was also because it looks that way. It looks like the sun, moon and planets are going around a stationary earth. It took a brave imagination for a scientist to realize that what they were seeing might be an illusion created by the fact that they are standing on a rotating globe. Similarly, it took a brave imagination for William T. Powers to realize that what scientific psychologists were seeing was not stimuli causing responses but ,rather, a side effect of the process of control of perceptual input; protecting with their responses the disturbing effect of stimuli on controlled variables. In Copernicus and Galileo’s time, strong resistance to the idea that the geocentric model of the solar system was based on an illusion came mainly from the religious establishment; in Powers’ time, strong resistance to the idea that the lineal causal model of behavior was based on an illusion came from the social/behavioral/life science establishment. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Best

Rick

–
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

[Abbott]

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.10.12.0820 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2017.10.11.1745) –

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.10.1015 EDT)–

BA: I appreciate the point. According to PCT, behavior is driven by error in a controlled perception, so the experiment must have created a disturbance to some controlled variable. But does the CV that is disturbed by the manipulation necessarily the same variable that is under investigation? The answer is “no.�

RM: That’s correct. The CV is never under investigation. Conventional psychologists don’t even know it exists. That’s the problem!!

BA: Sorry, I stated that inelegantly.  Better:  Is the independent variable in this investigation the same variable that acts as a disturbance to the logical relation? The answer is “no.�

BA: … In signal detection experiments the independent variable might be the proportion of trials on which the signal (i.e., the tone) is presented with the noise. The participant is exposed to a large block of trials at a given proportion before being exposed to the next block having a different proportion… The analysis of the data yields what is called a “receiver operating characteristicâ€? (ROC) curve that reveals the participant’s sensitivity to the tone…The sensitivity curve is not the inverse of the feedback function of the relationship control system, but a measure of the participant’s ability to detect the signal, given the level of noise present. Thus is it not an example of the behavioral illusion.

RM: That’s right. From a control theory perspective the d’ measure of sensitivity is a measure of how well the subject is able to control the controlled variable – the logical relationship between tone presence or not and saying “yes” or “no”. This relationship can be better controlled (d’ will be large) the greater the S/N ratio of tone to noise energy.

BA: You seem to have forgotten what this debate has been about. You claim that every independent variable in a “conventional� psychology experiment functions as a disturbance to some controlled variable, and that consequently the relationship between independent and dependent variable that is observed is an example of the “behavioral illusion,� i.e., it is approximately the inverse of the environmental feedback function and not a characteristic of the participant. **The signal-detection example refutes that claim.** You yourself admit that it measures a characteristic of the participant, the participant’s ability to discriminate signal + noise from noise alone, or as you put it, “how well the subject is able to control the controlled variable,� which of course depends in this example on said ability to discriminate.

BA: This is not an argument against the behavioral illusion, but rather against the claim that all IV-DV relationships in the psychological literature are necessarily examples of it.

Bruce

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.12.1830)]

···

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Hi Rick, I am interested in this because I am in the process of developing a volume control continuous tracking task. I had thought, especially after reading Casting Nets that there is a constant in the power law formula that is specific to the individual carrying out the task?

RM: Yes, apparently the coefficient of the power law relating stimulus magnitude and numerical magnitude estimate varies somewhat from individual to individual. But for each individual the relationship between these variables is a power function as indicated by the nearly perfect linear relationship between log (stimulus magnitude) and log (numerical magnitude estimate).

WM: I want to test if this is isometric with the gain parameter in the closed loop volume control system…

RM: I don’t see why you would expect that to be the case. Could you describe the volume control task you have in mind and show me the derivation of your prediction.Â

RM: By the way, if you read my “Power Law” paper (http://www.mindreadings.com/BehavioralIllusion.pdf) you will see that PCT would say that the reason why individuals differ in the coefficient of the power relationship between log (stimulus magnitude) and log (numerical magnitude estimate) is because the differ slightly in how they perceive numbers (the coefficient, k1, of the log function relating numbers to the psychological magnitude of numbers) or in how they perceive the physical stimulus (the coefficient, k.2, of the log function relating physical stimulus magnitude to psychological stimulus magnitude) or because they differ in both k1 and k2, since the coefficient of the power law is presumably proportional to the ratio of k.2 to k.1.

Best

Rick

Warren

On 12 Oct 2017, at 01:45, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.11.1745)]

–

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.10.1015 EDT)–

BA: I appreciate the point. According to PCT, behavior is driven by error in a controlled perception, so the experiment must have created a disturbance to some controlled variable. But does the CV that is disturbed by the manipulation necessarily the same variable that is under investigation? The answer is “no.�

RM: That’s correct. The CV is never under investigation. Conventional psychologists don’t even know it exists. That’s the problem!!Â

Â

BA: … In signal detection experiments the independent variable might be the proportion of trials on which the signal (i.e., the tone) is presented with the noise. The participant is exposed to a large block of trials at a given proportion before being exposed to the next block having a different proportion… The analysis of the data yields what is called a “receiver operating characteristicâ€? (ROC) curve that reveals the participant’s sensitivity to the tone…The sensitivity curve is not the inverse of the feedback function of the relationship control system, but a measure of the participant’s ability to detect the signal, given the level of noise present. Thus is it not an example of the behavioral illusion.

RM: That’s right. From a control theory perspective the d’ measure of sensitivity is a measure of how well the subject is able to control the controlled variable – the logical relationship between tone presence or not and saying “yes” or “no”. This relationship can be better controlled (d’ will be large) the greater the S/N ratio of tone to noise energy.

RM: An interesting implication of this is that the Weber-Fechner approach to determining sensitivity to difference in stimulus magnitudes (just noticeable differences, jnd’s) – where the data is a measure of the subject’s ability to correctly say whether or not there is a difference between the stimuli – is a better approach to doing psychophysics that is the magnitude estimation approach – where the data is a measure of the functional relationship between stimulus magnitude and response magnitude. So Steven’s “power law”, which is obtained via magnitude estimation, is another example of a behavioral illusion (as is the similarly named power law of movement-- though they are illusions for different reasons (see my paper on Steven’s power law “illusion” here: http://www.mindreadings.com/BehavioralIllusion.pdf)

RM: I think this will be my last post on the behavioral illusion. We’ve been having this argument for over 20 years and I doubt that I’m going to convince you now. And I also think I’m not convincing anyone who might be listening to exchange; I’m pretty sure the crowd is on your (and Martin’s) side. But, again, the discussion has been worth it to me because it has clarified my own thoughts about the behavioral illusion and, given how important I think it is, I think I will try to write an article or book on it. But here is a brief summary of what I think the behavioral illusion is about.Â

RM: The behavioral illusion refers to the fact that the behavior of a control system can appear to be that of an open-loop causal system, such as the one that scientific psychologists imagine themselves to be studying. Bill Powers described this illusion to show why scientific psychologists have continued to study behavior as though it were caused output. It’s not because they are stupid or crazy; it’s because the behavior of a control system looks that way; it looks like responses (dependent variables) are caused by stimuli (independent variables). It’s very much analogous to the reason why scientists persistent in developing geocentric models of the behavior of the planets. It wasn’t just because of religious preferences; it was also because it looks that way. It looks like the sun, moon and planets are going around a stationary earth. It took a brave imagination for a scientist to realize that what they were seeing might be an illusion created by the fact that they are standing on a rotating globe. Similarly, it took a brave imagination for William T. Powers to realize that what scientific psychologists were seeing was not stimuli causing responses but ,rather, a side effect of the process of control of perceptual input; protecting with their responses the disturbing effect of stimuli on controlled variables. In Copernicus and Galileo’s time, strong resistance to the idea that the geocentric model of the solar system was based on an illusion came mainly from the religious establishment; in Powers’ time, strong resistance to the idea that the lineal causal model of behavior was based on an illusion came from the social/behavioral/life science establishment. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

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

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

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2017.10.13.00.06]

    Hi Rick, I am interested in this because I am in the process

of developing a volume control continuous tracking task. I had
thought, especially after reading Casting Nets that there is a
constant in the power law formula that is specific to the
individual carrying out the task? I want to test if this is
isometric with the gain parameter in the closed loop volume
control system…

Warren

Warren, in the 1950s, my advisor (W.R.Garner) did several studies in

which he showed the unreliability of the power law for perceived
loudness. The perception depends greatly on the range of sounds used
to generate the scale, and on the response set allowed the subject.
His basic conclusion is that the power law, taken as a measure of an
independent property of an individual, is worthless. Early in my own
career as a psychologist, I did a large-scale comparison of
perceived magnitudes across many different perceptual dimensions
(never completed, and never published). I compared colour,
orientation between horizontal and vertical, number, position of a
word in a learned list, placement of a marker on a line, etc. I
paired each with all of the others, asking the subject to say, for
example, “what number between 0 and 25 corresponds to this loudness”
(a “classic” power-law scaling task), and “Adjust the loudness so it
is at this number between 0 and 25”. These two tasks ought to give
the same relationship between number and loudness, but they don’t.
This was true for all the pairs of dimensions.

Bottom line, I don't think these power law functions are worth the

paper the graphs are drawn on. For particular presentation and
response conditions they seem reasonably consistent, and may even
show consistent differences from person to person, but as absolute
numbers, forget it.

···

                    Bruce Abbott (2017.10.10.1015

EDT)–

                              BA: I appreciate

the point. According to PCT, behavior
is driven by error in a controlled
perception, so the experiment must
have created a disturbance to some
controlled variable. But does the CV
that is disturbed by the manipulation
necessarily the same variable that is
under investigation? The answer is
“no.�

              RM: That's correct. The CV is never under

investigation. Conventional psychologists don’t even
know it exists. That’s the problem!!Â

Â

                    BA:Â ... In signal detection

experiments the independent variable might be
the proportion of trials on which the signal
(i.e., the tone) is presented with the noise.Â
The participant is exposed to a large block of
trials at a given proportion before being
exposed to the next block having a different
proportion… The analysis of the data yields
what is called a “receiver operating
characteristic� (ROC) curve that reveals the
participant’s sensitivity to the tone…The
sensitivity curve is not the inverse of
the feedback function of the relationship
control system, but a measure of the
participant’s ability to detect the signal,
given the level of noise present. Thus is it
not an example of the behavioral illusion.

              RM: That's right. From a control theory perspective

the d’ measure of sensitivity is a measure of how well
the subject is able to control the controlled variable
– the logical relationship between tone presence or
not and saying “yes” or “no”. This relationship can be
better controlled (d’ will be large) the greater the
S/N ratio of tone to noise energy.

              RM: An interesting implication of this is that the

Weber-Fechner approach to determining sensitivity to
difference in stimulus magnitudes (just noticeable
differences, jnd’s) – where the data is a measure of
the subject’s ability to correctly say whether or not
there is a difference between the stimuli – is a
better approach to doing psychophysics that is the
magnitude estimation approach – where the data is a
measure of the functional relationship between
stimulus magnitude and response magnitude. So Steven’s
“power law”, which is obtained via magnitude
estimation, is another example of a behavioral
illusion (as is the similarly named power law of
movement-- though they are illusions for different
reasons (see my paper on Steven’s power law “illusion”
here: http://www.mindreadings.com/BehavioralIllusion.pdf)

              RM: I think this will be my last post on the

behavioral illusion. We’ve been having this argument
for over 20 years and I doubt that I’m going to
convince you now. And I also think I’m not convincing
anyone who might be listening to exchange; I’m pretty
sure the crowd is on your (and Martin’s) side. But,
again, the discussion has been worth it to me because
it has clarified my own thoughts about the behavioral
illusion and, given how important I think it is, I
think I will try to write an article or book on it.
But here is a brief summary of what I think the
behavioral illusion is about.Â

              RM: The behavioral illusion refers to the fact that

the behavior of a control system can appear to be that
of an open-loop causal system, such as the one that
scientific psychologists imagine themselves to be
studying. Bill Powers described this illusion to show
why scientific psychologists have continued to study
behavior as though it were caused output. It’s not
because they are stupid or crazy; it’s because the
behavior of a control system looks that way; it looks
like responses (dependent variables) are caused by
stimuli (independent variables). It’s very much
analogous to the reason why scientists persistent in
developing geocentric models of the behavior of the
planets. It wasn’t just because of religious
preferences; it was also because it looks that way. It
looks like the sun, moon and planets are going around
a stationary earth. It took a brave imagination for a
scientist to realize that what they were seeing might
be an illusion created by the fact that they are
standing on a rotating globe. Similarly, it took a
brave imagination for William T. Powers to realize
that what scientific psychologists were seeing was not
stimuli causing responses but ,rather, a side effect
of the process of control of perceptual input;
protecting with their responses the disturbing effect
of stimuli on controlled variables. In Copernicus and
Galileo’s time, strong resistance to the idea that the
geocentric model of the solar system was based on an
illusion came mainly from the religious establishment;
in Powers’ time, strong resistance to the idea that
the lineal causal model of behavior was based on an
illusion came from the social/behavioral/life science
establishment. Plus ça
change, plus c’est la même chose.

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.�
Â
              Â
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[wmansell]

Thanks Martin and Rick, that’s very helpful. I don’t come up with the idea from the mathematics. It was rather by assuming that if there was any obvious property of the control of loudness in an individual that would be clearly distinguished, it would be the gain of the control system, and so maybe this is what the power law researchers have stumbled upon as individually distinctive unknowingly. So we don’t need to link the study to the power law and it’s not a test of it, rather it is a case for a PCT analysis of loudness perception that ties it to continuous action in a closed loop. I’ll share more about the task when I’ve got a student allocated to it…

All the best

Warren

···

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Hi Rick, I am interested in this because I am in the process of developing a volume control continuous tracking task. I had thought, especially after reading Casting Nets that there is a constant in the power law formula that is specific to the individual carrying out the task?

RM: Yes, apparently the coefficient of the power law relating stimulus magnitude and numerical magnitude estimate varies somewhat from individual to individual. But for each individual the relationship between these variables is a power function as indicated by the nearly perfect linear relationship between log (stimulus magnitude) and log (numerical magnitude estimate).

WM: I want to test if this is isometric with the gain parameter in the closed loop volume control system…

RM: I don’t see why you would expect that to be the case. Could you describe the volume control task you have in mind and show me the derivation of your prediction.

RM: By the way, if you read my “Power Law” paper (http://www.mindreadings.com/BehavioralIllusion.pdf) you will see that PCT would say that the reason why individuals differ in the coefficient of the power relationship between log (stimulus magnitude) and log (numerical magnitude estimate) is because the differ slightly in how they perceive numbers (the coefficient, k1, of the log function relating numbers to the psychological magnitude of numbers) or in how they perceive the physical stimulus (the coefficient, k.2, of the log function relating physical stimulus magnitude to psychological stimulus magnitude) or because they differ in both k1 and k2, since the coefficient of the power law is presumably proportional to the ratio of k.2 to k.1.

Best

Rick

Warren

On 12 Oct 2017, at 01:45, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.11.1745)]

–

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.10.1015 EDT)–

BA: I appreciate the point. According to PCT, behavior is driven by error in a controlled perception, so the experiment must have created a disturbance to some controlled variable. But does the CV that is disturbed by the manipulation necessarily the same variable that is under investigation? The answer is “no.�

RM: That’s correct. The CV is never under investigation. Conventional psychologists don’t even know it exists. That’s the problem!!

BA: … In signal detection experiments the independent variable might be the proportion of trials on which the signal (i.e., the tone) is presented with the noise. The participant is exposed to a large block of trials at a given proportion before being exposed to the next block having a different proportion… The analysis of the data yields what is called a “receiver operating characteristicâ€? (ROC) curve that reveals the participant’s sensitivity to the tone…The sensitivity curve is not the inverse of the feedback function of the relationship control system, but a measure of the participant’s ability to detect the signal, given the level of noise present. Thus is it not an example of the behavioral illusion.

RM: That’s right. From a control theory perspective the d’ measure of sensitivity is a measure of how well the subject is able to control the controlled variable – the logical relationship between tone presence or not and saying “yes” or “no”. This relationship can be better controlled (d’ will be large) the greater the S/N ratio of tone to noise energy.

RM: An interesting implication of this is that the Weber-Fechner approach to determining sensitivity to difference in stimulus magnitudes (just noticeable differences, jnd’s) – where the data is a measure of the subject’s ability to correctly say whether or not there is a difference between the stimuli – is a better approach to doing psychophysics that is the magnitude estimation approach – where the data is a measure of the functional relationship between stimulus magnitude and response magnitude. So Steven’s “power law”, which is obtained via magnitude estimation, is another example of a behavioral illusion (as is the similarly named power law of movement-- though they are illusions for different reasons (see my paper on Steven’s power law “illusion” here: http://www.mindreadings.com/BehavioralIllusion.pdf)

RM: I think this will be my last post on the behavioral illusion. We’ve been having this argument for over 20 years and I doubt that I’m going to convince you now. And I also think I’m not convincing anyone who might be listening to exchange; I’m pretty sure the crowd is on your (and Martin’s) side. But, again, the discussion has been worth it to me because it has clarified my own thoughts about the behavioral illusion and, given how important I think it is, I think I will try to write an article or book on it. But here is a brief summary of what I think the behavioral illusion is about.

RM: The behavioral illusion refers to the fact that the behavior of a control system can appear to be that of an open-loop causal system, such as the one that scientific psychologists imagine themselves to be studying. Bill Powers described this illusion to show why scientific psychologists have continued to study behavior as though it were caused output. It’s not because they are stupid or crazy; it’s because the behavior of a control system looks that way; it looks like responses (dependent variables) are caused by stimuli (independent variables). It’s very much analogous to the reason why scientists persistent in developing geocentric models of the behavior of the planets. It wasn’t just because of religious preferences; it was also because it looks that way. It looks like the sun, moon and planets are going around a stationary earth. It took a brave imagination for a scientist to realize that what they were seeing might be an illusion created by the fact that they are standing on a rotating globe. Similarly, it took a brave imagination for William T. Powers to realize that what scientific psychologists were seeing was not stimuli causing responses but ,rather, a side effect of the process of control of perceptual input; protecting with their responses the disturbing effect of stimuli on controlled variables. In Copernicus and Galileo’s time, strong resistance to the idea that the geocentric model of the solar system was based on an illusion came mainly from the religious establishment; in Powers’ time, strong resistance to the idea that the lineal causal model of behavior was based on an illusion came from the social/behavioral/life science establishment. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Best

Rick

–
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

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

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2017.10.13.08.35]

In that case, I suggest you look at Garner's study in which he asked

subjects to indicate the loudness that was half as loud as a 90dB
tone. The catch was that he gave different subjects different ranges
of loudness as comparisons – 55-65 dB, 65-75 dB, 75-85 dB. The
loudness that was perceived as half as loud as 90dB was in the
middle of whatever comparison range the subjects had at their
disposal. It had nothing to do with the intensity relation between
the 90 dB sound and the comparison. "Context effects and the
validity of loudness scales, J. Exp. Psychol, 1954, 48, 218-224.
Garner has a lot of related studies in the 50s and 60s if you look
at Google Scholar.
Martin
Martin

···

On 2017/10/13 1:26 AM, Warren Mansell
wrote:

    Thanks Martin and Rick, that's very helpful. I don't come up

with the idea from the mathematics. It was rather by assuming
that if there was any obvious property of the control of
loudness in an individual that would be clearly distinguished,
it would be the gain of the control system, and so maybe this is
what the power law researchers have stumbled upon as
individually distinctive unknowingly. So we don’t need to link
the study to the power law and it’s not a test of it, rather it
is a case for a PCT analysis of loudness perception that ties it
to continuous action in a closed loop. I’ll share more about the
task when I’ve got a student allocated to it…

All the bestÂ

Warren

    On 13 Oct 2017, at 02:28, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com        >

wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.12.1830)]

            On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:02 PM,

Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
wrote:

                  WM: Hi Rick, I am interested in this because I

am in the process of developing a volume control
continuous tracking task. I had thought,
especially after reading Casting Nets that there
is a constant in the power law formula that is
specific to the individual carrying out the task?

              RM: Yes, apparently the coefficient of the power

law relating stimulus magnitude and numerical
magnitude estimate varies somewhat from individual to
individual. But for each individual the relationship
between these variables is a power function as
indicated by the nearly perfect linear relationship
between log (stimulus magnitude) and log (numerical
magnitude estimate).

                  WM: I want to test if this is isometric with

the gain parameter in the closed loop volume
control system…

              RM: I don't see why you would expect that to be the

case. Could you describe the volume control task you
have in mind and show me the derivation of your
prediction.Â

RM: By the way, if you read my “Power Law” paper (http://www.mindreadings.com/BehavioralIllusion.pdf )
you will see that PCT would say that the reason why
individuals differ in the coefficient of the power
relationship between log (stimulus magnitude) and log
(numerical magnitude estimate) is because the differ
slightly in how they perceive numbers (the
coefficient, k1, of the log function relating numbers
to the psychological magnitude of numbers) or in how
they perceive the physical stimulus (the coefficient,
k.2, of the log function relating physical stimulus
magnitude to psychological stimulus magnitude) or
because they differ in both k1 and k2, since the
coefficient of the power law is presumably
proportional to the ratio of k.2 to k.1.

Best

Rick

Warren

                      On 12 Oct 2017, at 01:45, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com                          >

wrote:

                          [From Rick Marken

(2017.10.11.1745)]

                                      Bruce

Abbott (2017.10.10.1015 EDT)–

                                                BA:

I appreciate the
point. According to
PCT, behavior is
driven by error in a
controlled
perception, so the
experiment must have
created a
disturbance to some
controlled
variable. But does
the CV that is
disturbed by the
manipulation
necessarily the same
variable that is
under
investigation? The
answer is “no.�

                                RM: That's correct. The CV is

never under investigation.
Conventional psychologists don’t
even know it exists. That’s the
problem!!Â

Â

                                      BA:Â ... In

signal detection experiments
the independent variable might
be the proportion of trials on
which the signal (i.e., the
tone) is presented with the
noise. The participant is
exposed to a large block of
trials at a given proportion
before being exposed to the
next block having a different
proportion… The analysis of
the data yields what is called
a “receiver operating
characteristic� (ROC) curve
that reveals the participant’s
sensitivity to the tone…The
sensitivity curve is not
the inverse of the feedback
function of the relationship
control system, but a measure
of the participant’s ability
to detect the signal, given
the level of noise present.Â
Thus is it not an example of
the behavioral illusion.

                                RM: That's right. From a control

theory perspective the d’ measure of
sensitivity is a measure of how well
the subject is able to control the
controlled variable – the logical
relationship between tone presence
or not and saying “yes” or “no”.
This relationship can be better
controlled (d’ will be large) the
greater the S/N ratio of tone to
noise energy.

                                RM: An interesting implication of

this is that the Weber-Fechner
approach to determining sensitivity
to difference in stimulus magnitudes
(just noticeable differences, jnd’s)
– where the data is a measure of
the subject’s ability to correctly
say whether or not there is a
difference between the stimuli – is
a better approach to doing
psychophysics that is the magnitude
estimation approach – where the
data is a measure of the functional
relationship between stimulus
magnitude and response magnitude. So
Steven’s “power law”, which is
obtained via magnitude estimation,
is another example of a behavioral
illusion (as is the similarly named
power law of movement-- though they
are illusions for different reasons
(see my paper on Steven’s power law
“illusion” here: http://www.mindreadings.com/BehavioralIllusion.pdf)

                                RM: I think this will be my last

post on the behavioral illusion.
We’ve been having this argument for
over 20 years and I doubt that I’m
going to convince you now. And I
also think I’m not convincing anyone
who might be listening to exchange;
I’m pretty sure the crowd is on your
(and Martin’s) side. But, again, the
discussion has been worth it to me
because it has clarified my own
thoughts about the behavioral
illusion and, given how important I
think it is, I think I will try to
write an article or book on it. But
here is a brief summary of what I
think the behavioral illusion is
about.Â

                                RM: The behavioral illusion

refers to the fact that the behavior
of a control system can appear to be
that of an open-loop causal system,
such as the one that scientific
psychologists imagine themselves to
be studying. Bill Powers described
this illusion to show why scientific
psychologists have continued to
study behavior as though it were
caused output. It’s not because they
are stupid or crazy; it’s because
the behavior of a control system
looks that way; it looks like
responses (dependent variables) are
caused by stimuli (independent
variables). It’s very much
analogous to the reason why
scientists persistent in developing
geocentric models of the behavior of
the planets. It wasn’t just because
of religious preferences; it was
also because it looks that way. It
looks like the sun, moon and planets
are going around a stationary earth.
It took a brave imagination for a
scientist to realize that what they
were seeing might be an illusion
created by the fact that they are
standing on a rotating globe.
Similarly, it took a brave
imagination for William T. Powers to
realize that what scientific
psychologists were seeing was not
stimuli causing responses but
,rather, a side effect of the
process of control of perceptual
input; protecting with their
responses the disturbing effect of
stimuli on controlled variables. In
Copernicus and Galileo’s time,
strong resistance to the idea that
the geocentric model of the solar
system was based on an illusion came
mainly from the religious
establishment; in Powers’ time,
strong resistance to the idea that
the lineal causal model of behavior
was based on an illusion came from
the social/behavioral/life science
establishment. Plus
ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

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.�
Â
      Â
      Â
 --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

–
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

[wmansell]

Wow thanks Martin!
Warren

···

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2017.10.13.08.35]

  On 2017/10/13 1:26 AM, Warren Mansell

wrote:

    Thanks Martin and Rick, that's very helpful. I don't come up

with the idea from the mathematics. It was rather by assuming
that if there was any obvious property of the control of
loudness in an individual that would be clearly distinguished,
it would be the gain of the control system, and so maybe this is
what the power law researchers have stumbled upon as
individually distinctive unknowingly. So we don’t need to link
the study to the power law and it’s not a test of it, rather it
is a case for a PCT analysis of loudness perception that ties it
to continuous action in a closed loop. I’ll share more about the
task when I’ve got a student allocated to it…

All the bestÂ

Warren

In that case, I suggest you look at Garner's study in which he asked

subjects to indicate the loudness that was half as loud as a 90dB
tone. The catch was that he gave different subjects different ranges
of loudness as comparisons – 55-65 dB, 65-75 dB, 75-85 dB. The
loudness that was perceived as half as loud as 90dB was in the
middle of whatever comparison range the subjects had at their
disposal. It had nothing to do with the intensity relation between
the 90 dB sound and the comparison. "Context effects and the
validity of loudness scales, J. Exp. Psychol, 1954, 48, 218-224.
Garner has a lot of related studies in the 50s and 60s if you look
at Google Scholar.

Martin



Martin

    On 13 Oct 2017, at 02:28, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com        >

wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.12.1830)]

–

            On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:02 PM,

Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
wrote:

                  WM: Hi Rick, I am interested in this because I

am in the process of developing a volume control
continuous tracking task. I had thought,
especially after reading Casting Nets that there
is a constant in the power law formula that is
specific to the individual carrying out the task?

              RM: Yes, apparently the coefficient of the power

law relating stimulus magnitude and numerical
magnitude estimate varies somewhat from individual to
individual. But for each individual the relationship
between these variables is a power function as
indicated by the nearly perfect linear relationship
between log (stimulus magnitude) and log (numerical
magnitude estimate).

                  WM: I want to test if this is isometric with

the gain parameter in the closed loop volume
control system…

              RM: I don't see why you would expect that to be the

case. Could you describe the volume control task you
have in mind and show me the derivation of your
prediction.Â

RM: By the way, if you read my “Power Law” paper (http://www.mindreadings.com/BehavioralIllusion.pdf )
you will see that PCT would say that the reason why
individuals differ in the coefficient of the power
relationship between log (stimulus magnitude) and log
(numerical magnitude estimate) is because the differ
slightly in how they perceive numbers (the
coefficient, k1, of the log function relating numbers
to the psychological magnitude of numbers) or in how
they perceive the physical stimulus (the coefficient,
k.2, of the log function relating physical stimulus
magnitude to psychological stimulus magnitude) or
because they differ in both k1 and k2, since the
coefficient of the power law is presumably
proportional to the ratio of k.2 to k.1.

Best

Rick

Warren

                      On 12 Oct 2017, at 01:45, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com                          >

wrote:

                          [From Rick Marken

(2017.10.11.1745)]

–
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

                                      Bruce

Abbott (2017.10.10.1015 EDT)–

                                                BA:

I appreciate the
point. According to
PCT, behavior is
driven by error in a
controlled
perception, so the
experiment must have
created a
disturbance to some
controlled
variable. But does
the CV that is
disturbed by the
manipulation
necessarily the same
variable that is
under
investigation? The
answer is “no.�

                                RM: That's correct. The CV is

never under investigation.
Conventional psychologists don’t
even know it exists. That’s the
problem!!Â

Â

                                      BA:Â ... In

signal detection experiments
the independent variable might
be the proportion of trials on
which the signal (i.e., the
tone) is presented with the
noise. The participant is
exposed to a large block of
trials at a given proportion
before being exposed to the
next block having a different
proportion… The analysis of
the data yields what is called
a “receiver operating
characteristic� (ROC) curve
that reveals the participant’s
sensitivity to the tone…The
sensitivity curve is not
the inverse of the feedback
function of the relationship
control system, but a measure
of the participant’s ability
to detect the signal, given
the level of noise present.Â
Thus is it not an example of
the behavioral illusion.

                                RM: That's right. From a control

theory perspective the d’ measure of
sensitivity is a measure of how well
the subject is able to control the
controlled variable – the logical
relationship between tone presence
or not and saying “yes” or “no”.
This relationship can be better
controlled (d’ will be large) the
greater the S/N ratio of tone to
noise energy.

                                RM: An interesting implication of

this is that the Weber-Fechner
approach to determining sensitivity
to difference in stimulus magnitudes
(just noticeable differences, jnd’s)
– where the data is a measure of
the subject’s ability to correctly
say whether or not there is a
difference between the stimuli – is
a better approach to doing
psychophysics that is the magnitude
estimation approach – where the
data is a measure of the functional
relationship between stimulus
magnitude and response magnitude. So
Steven’s “power law”, which is
obtained via magnitude estimation,
is another example of a behavioral
illusion (as is the similarly named
power law of movement-- though they
are illusions for different reasons
(see my paper on Steven’s power law
“illusion” here: http://www.mindreadings.com/BehavioralIllusion.pdf)

                                RM: I think this will be my last

post on the behavioral illusion.
We’ve been having this argument for
over 20 years and I doubt that I’m
going to convince you now. And I
also think I’m not convincing anyone
who might be listening to exchange;
I’m pretty sure the crowd is on your
(and Martin’s) side. But, again, the
discussion has been worth it to me
because it has clarified my own
thoughts about the behavioral
illusion and, given how important I
think it is, I think I will try to
write an article or book on it. But
here is a brief summary of what I
think the behavioral illusion is
about.Â

                                RM: The behavioral illusion

refers to the fact that the behavior
of a control system can appear to be
that of an open-loop causal system,
such as the one that scientific
psychologists imagine themselves to
be studying. Bill Powers described
this illusion to show why scientific
psychologists have continued to
study behavior as though it were
caused output. It’s not because they
are stupid or crazy; it’s because
the behavior of a control system
looks that way; it looks like
responses (dependent variables) are
caused by stimuli (independent
variables). It’s very much
analogous to the reason why
scientists persistent in developing
geocentric models of the behavior of
the planets. It wasn’t just because
of religious preferences; it was
also because it looks that way. It
looks like the sun, moon and planets
are going around a stationary earth.
It took a brave imagination for a
scientist to realize that what they
were seeing might be an illusion
created by the fact that they are
standing on a rotating globe.
Similarly, it took a brave
imagination for William T. Powers to
realize that what scientific
psychologists were seeing was not
stimuli causing responses but
,rather, a side effect of the
process of control of perceptual
input; protecting with their
responses the disturbing effect of
stimuli on controlled variables. In
Copernicus and Galileo’s time,
strong resistance to the idea that
the geocentric model of the solar
system was based on an illusion came
mainly from the religious
establishment; in Powers’ time,
strong resistance to the idea that
the lineal causal model of behavior
was based on an illusion came from
the social/behavioral/life science
establishment. Plus
ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

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.�
Â
      Â
      Â
 --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[_Boris_Hartman]

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.11.1745)]

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.10.1015 EDT)–

BA: I appreciate the point. According to PCT, behavior is driven by error in a controlled perception, so the experiment must have created a disturbance to some controlled variable. But does the CV that is disturbed by the manipulation necessarily the same variable that is under investigation? The answer is “no.â€?

HB : I hope Bruce that you are using »some CV« in the sense of perceptual variable. That’s the only controlled variable in the loop.

Bill P : FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

RM: That’s correct. The CV is never under investigation.

HB : Well how do you know that ?

RM : Conventional psychologists don’t even know it exists. That’s the problem!!

HB : Look a little through psychological literature. Or maybe you don’t understand what is »CV«. I suppose you meant »Controlled variable« - perceptual signal.

Boris

BA: … In signal detection experiments the independent variable might be the proportion of trials on which the signal (i.e., the tone) is presented with the noise. The participant is exposed to a large block of trials at a given proportion before being exposed to the next block having a different proportion… The analysis of the data yields what is called a “receiver operating characteristicâ€? (ROC) curve that reveals the participant’s sensitivity to the tone…The sensitivity curve is not the inverse of the feedback function of the relationship control system, but a measure of the participant’s ability to detect the signal, given the level of noise present. Thus is it not an example of the behavioral illusion.

RM: That’s right. From a control theory perspective the d’ measure of sensitivity is a measure of how well the subject is able to control the controlled variable – the logical relationship between tone presence or not and saying “yes” or “no”. This relationship can be better controlled (d’ will be large) the greater the S/N ratio of tone to noise energy.

RM: An interesting implication of this is that the Weber-Fechner approach to determining sensitivity to difference in stimulus magnitudes (just noticeable differences, jnd’s) – where the data is a measure of the subject’s ability to correctly say whether or not there is a difference between the stimuli – is a better approach to doing psychophysics that is the magnitude estimation approach – where the data is a measure of the functional relationship between stimulus magnitude and response magnitude. So Steven’s “power law”, which is obtained via magnitude estimation, is another example of a behavioral illusion (as is the similarly named power law of movement-- though they are illusions for different reasons (see my paper on Steven’s power law “illusion” here: http://www.mindreadings.com/BehavioralIllusion.pdf)

RM: I think this will be my last post on the behavioral illusion. We’ve been having this argument for over 20 years and I doubt that I’m going to convince you now. And I also think I’m not convincing anyone who might be listening to exchange; I’m pretty sure the crowd is on your (and Martin’s) side. But, again, the discussion has been worth it to me because it has clarified my own thoughts about the behavioral illusion and, given how important I think it is, I think I will try to write an article or book on it. But here is a brief summary of what I think the behavioral illusion is about.

RM: The behavioral illusion refers to the fact that the behavior of a control system can appear to be that of an open-loop causal system, such as the one that scientific psychologists imagine themselves to be studying. Bill Powers described this illusion to show why scientific psychologists have continued to study behavior as though it were caused output. It’s not because they are stupid or crazy; it’s because the behavior of a control system looks that way; it looks like responses (dependent variables) are caused by stimuli (independent variables). It’s very much analogous to the reason why scientists persistent in developing geocentric models of the behavior of the planets. It wasn’t just because of religious preferences; it was also because it looks that way. It looks like the sun, moon and planets are going around a stationary earth. It took a brave imagination for a scientist to realize that what they were seeing might be an illusion created by the fact that they are standing on a rotating globe. Similarly, it took a brave imagination for William T. Powers to realize that what scientific psychologists were seeing was not stimuli causing responses but ,rather, a side effect of the process of control of perceptual input; protecting with their responses the disturbing effect of stimuli on controlled variables. In Copernicus and Galileo’s time, strong resistance to the idea that the geocentric model of the solar system was based on an illusion came mainly from the religious establishment; in Powers’ time, strong resistance to the idea that the lineal causal model of behavior was based on an illusion came from the social/behavioral/life science establishment. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Best

Rick

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:45 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Behavioural Illusion

–

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

[Abbott]

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.10.15.0820 EDT)]

···

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Behavioural Illusion

Rick Marken (2017.10.11.1745)]

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.10.1015 EDT)–

BA: I appreciate the point. According to PCT, behavior is driven by error in a controlled perception, so the experiment must have created a disturbance to some controlled variable. But does the CV that is disturbed by the manipulation necessarily the same variable that is under investigation? The answer is “no.�

HB : I hope Bruce that you are using »some CV« in the sense of perceptual variable. That’s the only controlled variable in the loop.

Bill P : FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on its own input.

BA: Bill Powers used the labels CV (for controlled variable) and qi interchangably. CV is the environmental variable (or combination of environmental variables) that constitute the input quantity (qi) to the perceptual input function. The output of the latter is the perceptual signal. Put another way, the CV is the environmental analog of the perceptual signal.

Bruce

[_Boris_Hartman]

Bruce…

···

From: Bruce Abbott [mailto:bbabbott@frontier.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 2:23 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Behavioural Illusion

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.10.15.0820 EDT)]

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Behavioural Illusion

Rick Marken (2017.10.11.1745)]

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.10.1015 EDT)–

BA: I appreciate the point. According to PCT, behavior is driven by error in a controlled perception, so the experiment must have created a disturbance to some controlled variable. But does the CV that is disturbed by the manipulation necessarily the same variable that is under investigation? The answer is “no.�

HB : I hope Bruce that you are using »some CV« in the sense of perceptual variable. That’s the only controlled variable in the loop.

Bill P : FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on its own input.

BA: Bill Powers used the labels CV (for controlled variable) and qi interchangably.

HB : Where exactly did Bill used terms interchangably. I can’t find any diagram where Bill used »controlled variable« or CV in environment of organism so that it can be interpreted interchangably. I canpt also non of his definitions that is using this terms intechangably. Can you show me ? Show us some evidences.

BA : CV is the environmental variable (or combination of environmental variables) that constitute the input quantity (qi) to the perceptual input function. The output of the latter is the perceptual signal.

HB : Is this coming out of your imagination ? And we should beleive you because you said so ? We need evidences Bruce. How CV is controlled ? With »Behavior« or Telekinesis ? Make physiological tour through control loop. You have enough material in B:CP.

BA : Put another way, the CV is the environmental analog of the perceptual signal.

HB : So If I understand right perceptual signal is »controlled« analog of »controlled environmental variable« or CEV or in RCT »Ricks Control Theory« he used term »Controlled Perceptual Variable«. Where did you see this term in PCT ?

So if I understand right control is somehow coming into organism through perceptual signal ?

To this point you were just theorizing and imagining. Can we see some evidences ?

Boris

Bruce

[Abbott]

From Bruce Abbott (2017.10.18.1505 EDT)]

···

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:51 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Behavioural Illusion

Bruce…

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.15.0820 EDT)]

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Behavioural Illusion

Rick Marken (2017.10.11.1745)]

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.10.1015 EDT)–

BA: I appreciate the point. According to PCT, behavior is driven by error in a controlled perception, so the experiment must have created a disturbance to some controlled variable. But does the CV that is disturbed by the manipulation necessarily the same variable that is under investigation? The answer is “no.�

HB : I hope Bruce that you are using »some CV« in the sense of perceptual variable. That’s the only controlled variable in the loop.

BA: No, the CV is not p, CV is an other label for qi. Both qi and its perceptual analog are under control in a control loop, as I explained below.

Bill P : FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on its own input.

BA: Bill Powers used the labels CV (for controlled variable) and qi interchangably.

HB : Where exactly did Bill used terms interchangably. I can’t find any diagram where Bill used »controlled variable« or CV in environment of organism so that it can be interpreted interchangably. I canpt also non of his definitions that is using this terms intechangably. Can you show me ? Show us some evidences.

BA: Well, I looked for a published example from Bill and didn’t find one. However, Bill used the term controlled variable or CV in the conversations I and others had with him. It’s the environmental variable (or combination of variables) that forms the input to the perceptual function, thus the label input quantity or qi. Whether he did or did not use the term is such a trivial issue that I won’t bother to search the CSGnet archives for an example; feel free to do so if you feel that it’s important to establish.

BA : CV is the environmental variable (or combination of environmental variables) that constitute the input quantity (qi) to the perceptual input function. The output of the latter is the perceptual signal.

HB : Is this coming out of your imagination ? And we should beleive you because you said so ? We need evidences Bruce. How CV is controlled ? With »Behavior« or Telekinesis ? Make physiological tour through control loop. You have enough material in B:CP.

BA: Is what coming out of my imagination? If I tell you that I use the term CV as an equivalent label for qi, on what basis do you question my statement, and why would I need evidence?Â

BA: Rick Marken and I have been using the term CV, and Martin Taylor the term environmental controlled variable, or ECV, in this way for years. Check out the CSGnet archives. Bill P. never objected to it. But if you find it objectionable, simply replace CV with qi wherever I used CV.

BA : Put another way, the CV is the environmental analog of the perceptual signal.

HB : So If I understand right perceptual signal is »controlled« analog of »controlled environmental variable« or CEV or in RCT »Ricks Control Theory« he used term »Controlled Perceptual Variable«. Where did you see this term in PCT ?

So if I understand right control is somehow coming into organism through perceptual signal ?

BA:Â Here is one of Bill P.'s diagrams:

In the diagram, what I called the CV is labeled I, input quantity.  I can understand how you might have been confused if you had not encountered CV as a term before, but I don’t understand why you don’t just accept my assertion that it is another label for qi.  If Bill were alive, would you be arguing with Bill about this new term, I, and wanting him to provide evidence that it is the same as qi? I think not.

BA: So let’s stop arguing about labels and get down to what is important to understand. In the diagram, the input quantity, I, is shown (via the arrow) as providing the input to the input function. What comes out of the input function is the perceptual signal. The input function serves as a transducer, converting variations in the physical variable, I, into variations in the neural signal, p. In the simplest case, I might be multiplied by a constant conversion factor to produce p, e.g., p = aI, where a is a constant of proportionality. Because p is just a multiple of I, would you agree the if p is controlled by the system, then I must also be controlled by the system?

BA: I don’t understand your last sentence, i.e., control is somehow coming into the organism through perceptual signal. Control of a variable occurs because of the negative feedback relationship between the effect of disturbances on qi and the negative feedback of the system’s output that is transmitted to qi via the feedback function. This negative feedback relation results in qi being controlled (protected against disturbances), as is the sensed representation of qi within the nervous system, i.e., the perceptual signal.

To this point you were just theorizing and imagining. Can we see some evidences ?

I just provided the mathematical justification for my statement that if p is controlled, then I is controlled. The issue is a mathematical one, and is thus to be resolved via mathematical proof.

Bruce

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.18.1532 ET)]

Pardon me for jumping in here, Bruce, but I have some questions about a couple of your statements below

···

From: Bruce Abbott [mailto:bbabbott@frontier.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 3:06 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Behavioural Illusion

From Bruce Abbott (2017.10.18.1505 EDT)]

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:51 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Behavioural Illusion

Bruce…

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.15.0820 EDT)]

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Behavioural Illusion

Rick Marken (2017.10.11.1745)]

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.10.1015 EDT)–

BA: I appreciate the point. According to PCT, behavior is driven by error in a controlled perception, so the experiment must have created a disturbance to some controlled variable. But does the CV that is disturbed by the manipulation necessarily the same variable that is under investigation? The answer is “no.�

HB : I hope Bruce that you are using »some CV« in the sense of perceptual variable. That’s the only controlled variable in the loop.

BA: No, the CV is not p, CV is an other label for qi. Both qi and its perceptual analog are under control in a control loop, as I explained below.

FN: I get that CV is another label for qi, the input quantity. I assume by »perceptual analog« you mean p, the perceptual signal. I also get that the output quantity affects the input quantity by way of the feedback function, but I thought that what was under control was p.Â

Bill P : FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on its own input.

BA: Bill Powers used the labels CV (for controlled variable) and qi interchangably.

HB : Where exactly did Bill used terms interchangably. I can’t find any diagram where Bill used »controlled variable« or CV in environment of organism so that it can be interpreted interchangably. I canpt also non of his definitions that is using this terms intechangably. Can you show me ? Show us some evidences.

BA: Well, I looked for a published example from Bill and didn’t find one. However, Bill used the term controlled variable or CV in the conversations I and others had with him. It’s the environmental variable (or combination of variables) that forms the input to the perceptual function, thus the label input quantity or qi. Whether he did or did not use the term is such a trivial issue that I won’t bother to search the CSGnet archives for an example; feel free to do so if you feel that it’s important to establish.

BA : CV is the environmental variable (or combination of environmental variables) that constitute the input quantity (qi) to the perceptual input function. The output of the latter is the perceptual signal.

FN: If CV and qi are interchangeable terms, then I get the statement above.

FN: In the glossary of B:CP (2nd Edition), here’s how Bill defined »Controlled Quantity – An environmental variable correspondingg to the perceptual signal in a control systems; a physical quantity (or a function of several physical quantities) that is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.« So, it would seem that Bill was saying that we do indeed control environmental variables, not just our perceptions of them. Do I have that correct?

HB : Is this coming out of your imagination ? And we should beleive you because you said so ? We need evidences Bruce. How CV is controlled ? With »Behavior« or Telekinesis ? Make physiological tour through control loop. You have enough material in B:CP.

BA: Is what coming out of my imagination? If I tell you that I use the term CV as an equivalent label for qi, on what basis do you question my statement, and why would I need evidence?

BA: Rick Marken and I have been using the term CV, and Martin Taylor the term environmental controlled variable, or ECV, in this way for years. Check out the CSGnet archives. Bill P. never objected to it. But if you find it objectionable, simply replace CV with qi wherever I used CV.

BA : Put another way, the CV is the environmental analog of the perceptual signal.

HB : So If I understand right perceptual signal is »controlled« analog of »controlled environmental variable« or CEV or in RCT »Ricks Control Theory« he used term »Controlled Perceptual Variable«. Where did you see this term in PCT ?

So if I understand right control is somehow coming into organism through perceptual signal ?

BA: Here is one of Bill P.'s diagrams:

In the diagram, what I called the CV is labeled I, input quantity. I can understand how you might have been confused if you had not encountered CV as a term before, but I don’t understand why you don’t just accept my assertion that it is another label for qi. If Bill were alive, would you be arguing with Bill about this new term, I, and wanting him to provide evidence that it is the same as qi? I think not.

BA: So let’s stop arguing about labels and get down to what is important to understand. In the diagram, the input quantity, I, is shown (via the arrow) as providing the input to the input function. What comes out of the input function is the perceptual signal. The input function serves as a transducer, converting variations in the physical variable, I, into variations in the neural signal, p. In the simplest case, I might be multiplied by a constant conversion factor to produce p, e.g., p = aI, where a is a constant of proportionality. Because p is just a multiple of I, would you agree the if p is controlled by the system, then I must also be controlled by the system?

BA: I don’t understand your last sentence, i.e., control is somehow coming into the organism through perceptual signal. Control of a variable occurs because of the negative feedback relationship between the effect of disturbances on qi and the negative feedback of the system’s output that is transmitted to qi via the feedback function. This negative feedback relation results in qi being controlled (protected against disturbances), as is the sensed representation of qi within the nervous system, i.e., the perceptual signal.

To this point you were just theorizing and imagining. Can we see some evidences ?

I just provided the mathematical justification for my statement that if p is controlled, then I is controlled. The issue is a mathematical one, and is thus to be resolved via mathematical proof.

Bruce

[Abbott]

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.10.18.1745 EDT)]

Fred Nickols (2017.10.18.1532 ET) –

Pardon me for jumping in here, Bruce, but I have some questions about a couple of your statements below

BA : CV is the environmental variable (or combination of environmental variables) that constitute the input quantity (qi) to the perceptual input function. The output of the latter is the perceptual signal.

FN: If CV and qi are interchangeable terms, then I get the statement above.

FN: In the glossary of B:CP (2nd Edition), here’s how Bill defined »Controlled Quantity – An environmental variable corrresponding to the perceptual signal in a control systems; a physical quantity (or a function of several physical quantities) that is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.« So, it would seem that Bill was saying that we do indeed control environmental variables, not just our perceptions of them. Do I have that correct?

BA: That’s certainly the way I see it.

BA: Where the perceptual signal depends only on a single environmental variable, then it is correct to say that both the perception and the environmental variable are being controlled by the control system. In a car’s cruise control, for example, the car’s speed is estimated from the rpm of the drive shaft. This rpm is the controlled environmental quantity. Drive shaft rpm is converted by the control system to a voltage that is proportional to rpm – this voltage is the coontrolled perception.

BA: In some cases, however, the perceptual signal is a function of two or more environmental variables. In that case there exists no single controlled quantity in the environment that corresponds to the perceptual signal. Instead, the controlled quantity is that combination of environmental variables that determines the perceptual signal, as defined by the input function. For example, a receiver system may be attempting to maintain a certain signal to noise ratio. That ratio depends on both the signal intensity and the noise intensity, both of which are environmental variables. A third variable corresponding to the ratio of the two does not exist in the environment. The control system’s perceptual signal is computed in the input function by sensing the signal and the noise, taking their ratio, and multiplying by a conversion factor to convert the levels of these physical variables to an internal representation, the perceptual signal. The controlled quantity in the environment is the ratio of the two environmental variables.

Bruce

[MartinT]

[From
Bruce Abbott (2017.10.18.1745 EDT)]

…

···

BA: In some cases, however, the perceptual
signal is a function of two or more environmental
variables. In that case there exists no single
controlled quantity in the environment that
corresponds to the perceptual signal. Instead, the
controlled quantity is that combination of
environmental variables that determines the
perceptual signal, as defined by the input
function. For example, a receiver system may be
attempting to maintain a certain signal to noise
ratio. That ratio depends on both the signal
intensity and the noise intensity, both of which are
environmental variables. A third variable
corresponding to the ratio of the two does not exist
in the environment.

[Abbott]

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.10.21.0925 EDT)]

[Martin Taylor 2017.10.18.18.47] –

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.10.18.1745 EDT)]

…

BA: In some cases, however, the perceptual signal is a function of two or more environmental variables. In that case there exists no single controlled quantity in the environment that corresponds to the perceptual signal. Instead, the controlled quantity is that combination of environmental variables that determines the perceptual signal, as defined by the input function. For example, a receiver system may be attempting to maintain a certain signal to noise ratio. That ratio depends on both the signal intensity and the noise intensity, both of which are environmental variables. A third variable corresponding to the ratio of the two does not exist in the environment.

MT: That seems a very weird thing to say. The signal intensity exists in the environment, the noise intensity exists in the environment, but their ratio (an equally abstract quantity) does not. That makes no sense to me at all.

BA: Hmm. I am not denying that the signal and noise exist in the environment in a particular ratio. The signal is out there in the environment, set by the experimenter to a particular frequency and intensity. The noise (in my example) is also out there in the environment, set to a particular distribution of frequencies and intensities (so-called “white� noise).  But do we have a perceptual input function that senses the signal-to-noise ratio and transduces it to a perceptual signal? I was thinking “probably not.�

BA:Â For me, the question is whether there are separate input functions for two environmental variables, which are separately transduced to perceptions, or a single input function that transduces a single variable in the environment, the signal-to-noise ratio. Â If there is no input function for the signal-to-noise ratio, then it is not directly perceived as a single environmental variable but constructed in the brain from the perceptual signals corresponding to the directly sensed properties of the environmental variables.

BA:  The example I used was probably not a good one, in retrospect.  On a technical level, it is probably incorrect to say that there are separate input functions for signal and noise, at least not at the level of the cochlea. Through a complex mechanism that is not completely understood, the cochlea and its associated primary auditory cortex are able to render separate perceptions of different frequencies with their associated intensities – something like doing a fast Fourier transform. A specific frequency at a given intensity (signal) and a specific frequency-intensity distribution (noise) are presented to the ear as a mixture, which the perceptual apparatus senses and transduces into a distribution of sound perceptions. At a higher level, some part of the brain must become “tunedâ€? to recognize the particular frequency of the signal (the participant is presented an example of the signal). The task then becomes to discriminate when that signal is or is not present within the distribution of noise.

BA:Â Â Bringing in these technical details is necessary when describing how the real mechanism works, Â but unfortunately it only muddies the waters of what was supposed to be a simple example intended to clarify a point about whether a given perceptual signal depends on a single environmental variable or on some combination of them.

BA: By the way, on what basis do you assert that signal and noise intensities are “abstract� quantities? They seem concrete to me.

Bruce

[MartinT]

[From
Bruce Abbott (2017.10.21.0925 EDT)]

[Martin Taylor 2017.10.18.18.47] –

···

          [From

Bruce Abbott (2017.10.18.1745 EDT)]

…

                  BA: In some cases, however, the

perceptual signal is a function of two or more
environmental variables. In that case there
exists no single controlled quantity in
the environment that corresponds to the perceptual
signal. Instead, the controlled quantity is that
combination of environmental variables that
determines the perceptual signal, as defined by
the input function. For example, a receiver
system may be attempting to maintain a certain
signal to noise ratio. That ratio depends on both
the signal intensity and the noise intensity, both
of which are environmental variables. A third
variable corresponding to the ratio of the two
does not exist in the environment.

                MT:
        That

seems a very weird thing to say. The signal intensity exists
in the environment, the noise intensity exists in the
environment, but their ratio (an equally abstract quantity)
does not. That makes no sense to me at all.

        BA:

Hmm. I am not denying that the signal and noise exist in
the environment in a particular ratio. The signal is out
there in the environment, set by the experimenter to a
particular frequency and intensity. The noise (in my
example) is also out there in the environment, set to a
particular distribution of frequencies and intensities
(so-called “white� noise).  But do we have a perceptual
input function that senses the signal-to-noise ratio and
transduces it to a perceptual signal? I was thinking
“probably not.�