Bipolar disorder, or more diversion from PCT

[From Bruce Abbott (971219.0935 EST)]

Rick Marken (971218.1800) --

Bruce Abbott (971218.2000 EST)

When I discussed bipolar affective disorder, I _was_ talking
about PCT, or so I thought. I _know_ I was talking about
control theory and human behavior. Are you suggesting that
these are not the same thing?

Bruce, we've been trying to explain to you for the last three
years that these are, indeed, _not_ the same thing. PCT is
just _one_ of many applications of control theory to behavior.
PCT happens to be the _correct_ application of control theory
to behavior because it is based on 1) an understanding of the
nature of control 2) recognition of the fact that purposeful
behavior _is_ control and 3) an understanding of the fact that
the behavior of a control (purposeful) system is organized around
the control of _perception_, not output. No other application of
control theory to behavior recognizes even _one_ of these facts
about behavior and control.

The chicken experiment was (unconsciously done) PCT. But, with
respect to your discussion of bipolar affective disorder, all
I can say is "That's nice. Now can we get back to talking about
PCT?"

O.K., let me see if I understand you correctly. If I suggest that the
striking behavioral symptoms of bipolar affective disorder have their root
in a failure of biochemical regulation (the system gain is effectively too
high, leading to oscillation about the reference level), this suggestion has
nothing whatever to do with the theory that behavior is the control of
perception. Is this what you are saying? If so, it is very odd. I would
think that a theory which says that human beings are living control systems
would have something to say about the ways in which such systems may fail,
and what is expected to happen behaviorally as a result.

By the way, with regard to Bill's correction, I _did_ mean receptors, not
neurotransmitters. More specifically, I was referring to the density of
receptors for the relevant neurotransmitter(s).

Regards,

Bruce

[From Rick Marken (971219.1345)]

Me:

The chicken experiment was (unconsciously done) PCT. But, with
respect to your discussion of bipolar affective disorder, all
I can say is "That's nice. Now can we get back to talking about
PCT?"

Bruce Abbott (971219.0935 EST) --

O.K., let me see if I understand you correctly. If I suggest that
the striking behavioral symptoms of bipolar affective disorder
have their root in a failure of biochemical regulation (the system
gain is effectively too high, leading to oscillation about the
reference level), this suggestion has nothing whatever to do with
the theory that behavior is the control of perception. Is this
what you are saying?

Correct. It's just PCT jargon being used to "explain" superficial
appearances (generated outputs, as Tim Carey points out -- you could
learn a lot about PCT from Tim's posts, by the way; Tim's secret is
that he didn't approach PCT assuming that he knew all about it
already; Tim actually wanted to learn PCT -- and he has).

The chicken, experiment, on the other hand, was a nice _first step_
at a test to determine a variable controlled by the chicken (a nice
next step would have been to determine whether the controlled variable
is distance to one wall (as suggested by this first study) or average
distance to surroundings or something else.

If so, it is very odd.

So much must seem odd to you about PCT.

I would think that a theory which says that human beings are
living control systems would have something to say about the
ways in which such systems may fail, and what is expected to
happen behaviorally as a result.

It does.

Best

Rick

ยทยทยท

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken