[From Rick Marken (931029.1100)]
Oded Maler (931029) --
I think (not being a native English speaking PCTer, though) that when
a higher level system sends reference signals to lower ones, it
specifies the desired outcome for the lower-level system, but it
specifies at the same time the abstract means to achieve its own
outcome. Of course, you will say, those are automatic results of
controling a for high-level goal, but since we do not know yet exactly
how sequences of actions are controlled for (and this is why
motor-schema are for) you can be more liberal than you actually are.
It looks like it's just about impossible for anyone to be WRONG about
PCT. As one of the few ridiculously liberal people who still believes
that there ARE wrong answers to some questions I will just point out
that 1) a reference signal does NOT specify the abstract means to "achieve
its own outcome" (to see why, read the sequence of posts on "information
about the disturbance" -- it is the DIFFERENCE between reference and
perception [error] that specifies the CONCRETE means to continuously
make perceptual outcome match reference specifciation) and 2) we know
enough about how "sequences of actions are controlled" to know that
sequences of actions are NOT controlled (the PERCEPTION of some side
effect of a sequence of actions -- such as their visual appearance --
can be controlled, but this has nothing at all to do with the fact that
reference signals do NOT, in any way, specify the abstract means used
to achieve outcomes).
By the way, if there is no way for scientists to be wrong about control,
then why ask them what they mean? They're bound to be right, right?
Is there anything that Greg or you would count as something that a
nonPCTer could say about behavior or how it occurs that would NOT be
consistent with PCT?
Best
Rick