[From Bill Powers (931001.1030 MDT)]
Martin Taylor (930930.1130) --
Good to have you back, full of good ideas.
Affordances: Your interpretation is OK with me. I would have had
many fewer objections to Gibson if he had not claimed to know
what those affordances are.
Causality: In much simpler terms: Some theorists claim that
cognitions cause actions. Others claim that stimuli cause
actions. PCT claims that actions are not the point; all that
repeats is the outcome of actions. Actions vary in a way that is
related to unmpredictable independent environment events that
affect outcomes, and thus can't be causally dependent either on
cognitions or on stimulus events (except in an average
statistical way).
Many postings, particularly but not only those that present PCT
for newcomers, seem to equate "All Behaviour is the Control of
Perception" with "All Perception is controlled by Behaviour."
Good point. Something to consider, however, is whether there are
perceptions which HAVE NEVER been under control. Do we ever
develop perceptual functions except for the purpose of
controlling the resulting perceptions? Your precept, which I
accept, that perceptions must be learned interactively would seem
to suggest that the only higher-level perceptions (I'll except
sensory-nerve signals for now) that exist must have been learned
as part of a control process, even if that process is no longer
used. In any set of existing perceptual signals, there are far
more _potential_ than _actual_ perceptions. So the actual degrees
of freedom at any given level must be far less than those that
have been realized by constructing a specific perceptual function
to derive them.
RE: goal, intention, purpose: I think my analysis still holds:
the core concept is the reference signal, with specific words
being used according to ancillary circumstances ( like what level
is involved or what part of the control process you're talking
about).
···
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Nevin (930930.1440 EDT) --
Very nice response to Rick Marken concerning the Test for
Contrast. Your description is analogous to the coin game except
for having the subject correct the error.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dag Forssell (930930 2240) --
The problem with the word "control" is indeed serious. Perhaps
you should write a separate one-page explanation that shows why
people don't like this word, why they are right, and how a deeper
understanding of the _process_ of control can help do something
about getting rid of misuses of control.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hal Pepinski (930930) --
... I only hear confirmed that control is somebody else's
endeavor rather than their own in interaction with others.
The problem with having an interpretation beforehand and then
just looking for confirmation of it is that you will find the
confirmation whether your interpretation is right or not.
In fact, control theory is ENTIRELY about individuals controlling
THEIR OWN experiences, in interaction with the world.
Leaving out emotion, basing one's model on purely material
measures, is another manifestation of the same distancing of
self from one's control problems.
PCT does contain a model of emotions: see Living Control Systems
II, p. 31 ff. Emotion is an intrinsic part of every behavior. You
may not like the model of emotion, but it is there.
To borrow one metaphor, PCT appears to be all left-brain,
except for shifts in levels of reorganization for which
the model cannot account. There is no modeling of emotion in
PCT, am I not correct?
Bullshit! Or is that too emotional a comment?
------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,
Bill P.