[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