[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-09]
Thanks Martin and Bruce but I still have problem. You stress that “ the output is largely determined by the environmental feedback function, not by the internal workings of the
organism ([Martin Taylor 2017.10.07.17.46] )�. But isn’t it so that it depends on the reference whether there is any output at all? And reference is a part of the internal
workings of the organism. Of course it is the characteristics of the environmental feedback function which determines how strong the output must be to cancel the disturbance. But still it is the internal output function which produces the output.
It is very clear that the relationship between disturbance (“stimulus�) and output (“response�) is a causal one. But it is not a straight and immediate one. There are a series of mediating smaller causal
mechanisms between them like Bruce describes. Secondly there is the circular reciprocal interaction so that the output affects the disturbance as much as disturbance affected the output. And this is a strange thing for the normal causal relationships: normally
it goes so that if the cause can be thought of as a directed force then the effect has the same direction as the cause. But here effect is inverse, like you wrote. This is easily explained by the effect of the reference to the causal chain in the comparator.
Causal chains can famously branch like the Wikipedia article says: one effect can have many causes and one cause can have many effects. So the output is caused by two causes: the disturbance and the reference. So perhaps a better slogan for control phenomenon
could be double causality than circular causality?
(Two qualifications: 1. Output is (double) caused by perception and reference but the change of the output as a (change) event (“response�) is caused by the disturbance as a (change) event (“stimulus�
to the perception) and the (non-change) event in the reference. 2. The received event causality view is restricted and should be replaced with more ontologically adequate object causality view but this is a wholly other story - and anyway the first one is
a part of the latter one.)
···
Eetu
–
Please, regard all my statements as questions,
no matter how they are formulated.
Lähettäjä: Bruce Abbott [mailto:bbabbott@frontier.com]
Lähetetty: 8. lokakuutata 2017 18:43
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: Behavioural Illusion (was Re: What is revolutionary about PCT?)
[From Bruce Abbott (2017.10.08.1140 EDT)]
Rick Marken (2017.10.07.1530)]
Bruce Abbott (2017.10.07.1730 EDT)
RM: The fact that the observed disturbance-output relationship is determined by the feedback function does not make it more difficult to see the true causal relationship
between these variables. Rather, it shows that there is no causal relationship between disturbance and output.
BA: Rick, at the risk of grabbing ahold of a tar-baby, how do
you define the phrase “causal relationship�?
RM: Good question. By “causal” I mean what Powers means when he talks about the “causal model” of behavior: I am referring to the idea that the disturbance (seen as a stimulus) variable leads to the output (seen as the
response) variable via process in the organism. It’s the concept of causality that is the basis of all research in scientific psychology – except that does by PCT researchers.
BA: I can see how defining “causal� in this way leads to the assertion that there is no causal relationship between disturbance (stimulus) and output (response). However, this is not how the term is commonly defined
(see below).
BA: Psychologists use the same definition of causality that other scientists do. For example, the Wikipedia article on causation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
) defines it as follows:
Causality (also
referred to as causation,[1] or ** cause
and effect**) is the natural or worldly agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect ),
where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal
factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.[2][3]
BA: By this accepted definition of cause, a disturbance to a well-controlled variable causes the control system’s output to change in such a way that its effect on the CV (determined by the environmental feedback function)
opposes the effect of the disturbance. There is a causal chain running from change in disturbance to change in the CV to change in the perceptual signal to change in the error signal to change in the output to change in the feedback. It is this causal chain
that mediates the observed approximately inverse relationship between disturbance and the feedback variables. That the causal chain forms a closed loop does not abrogate that fact.
BA: The behavioral illusion in not the illusion of cause where none exists, it is the illusion that the observed causal relationship between disturbance and output is a characteristic of the organism (forward equation)
whereas it is actually approximately the inverse of the environmental feedback function (when control is good) and thus mostly characterizes the environment. This has been Martin’s position, and I agree with him.
Bruce