# Causality; BC of all P?; contrast; left brain bushwah

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/causality-bc-of-all-p-contrast-left-brain-bushwah/2386>\
**Category:** CSG1993\
**Created:** [October 1, 1993, 5:04pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/causality-bc-of-all-p-contrast-left-brain-bushwah/2386 "1993-10-01T17:04:38Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![William\_T\_Powers2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@William\_T\_Powers2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/William_T_Powers2)\
**Post date:** [October 1, 1993, 5:04pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/causality-bc-of-all-p-contrast-left-brain-bushwah/2386/1 "1993-10-01T17:04:38Z")

</div>

[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.