[From Bruce Abbott (960912.2025 EST)]
Rick Marken (960912.1600) --
I know that the same word ("cause") is part of the description of lineal
and circular causality. But even though the same word is involved in
labelling these phenomena, they are quite different. The causality assumed in
the search for the lineal causes of behavior is not the same as the causality
involved in closed loop control. I have already mentioned the main
difference: lineal causality assumes that responses (r) are caused by
internal or external stimuli (s) and that the causal path goes through the
organism; so r = f(s) where f() is the organism. Circular causality assumes
that responses control input and resist disturbances (s) to that input in the
process: so r = g(s) where g() is the environment.You keep saying that you understand this fact. But you don't seem to think it
is very important. I think it is.
I think it is very important, too; what mystifies me is how you are drawing
the conclusion that I don't think it is very important. Is is your
hypothesis that, where we disagree on an issue, it must be because I don't
really understand circular causation, or must not think it's important?
I find it difficult to believe that a person who knows that they are dealing
with a closed loop system would be interested in studying the "causes of
behavior" (however that is construed).
If the "causes of behavior" reside in the organism's purposes, and one
wishes to identify what those purposes are, then I don't know of any other
way to do so than to apply disturbances and observe how the organism
responds to them. Do you? I would call that "studying the causes of behavior."
I think you are leaping at the word "cause" in linear and circular causality
because it lets you think that it's all just "causality"; that recognition of
the fact that organisms are closed loop control systems really requires no
change in the way we conceptualize the nature of the science of psychology.
I think I am leaping at the word "cause" in lineal and circular causality
because you said that behavior is not caused -- a demonstrable fallacy. Now
you're trying to weasle out of it by suggesting that I'm somehow to blame
for this error.
The fact that the cause-effect relationships that are found tell us nothing
about the organism seems to be of no consequence to you as long as you don't
have to change any fundamental notions about how to study behavior.
Oh Rick, what nonsense. I think there's some serious distortion in your
perceptual input filter; perhaps you might get it looked at. It seems to
translate things I say from the lovely, logical things they are (:-> into
gobbledy gook that even I don't recognize (when I get them reflected back at
me via your descriptions).
Think
what you like but it seems to me (based on what I'm reading here on CSGNet)
that cause- effect thinking can seriouslu get in the way of a clear
understanding of the nature of control.
I agree that it can, but you'll have to be a little more specific about
which reading you're talking about before I can agree (or disagree) with you
on whether those readings indicate a problem with cause-effect thinking or,
indeed, the lack of a clear understanding of the nature of control.
All I meant to say is
that lineal causal thinking doesn't work when you're dealing with closed loop
control. What is important in the study of closed loop behavior is "what is
controlled", not "what is caused". Of course behavior (output) in a closed
loop is caused; but it also _causes_. The result is that variables are
kept under _control_. That's what is important about purposeful behavior. The
nature of the causal relationship between s and r is an irrelevant side
effect of the process of control.
Well, I can certainly agree with that! Why didn't you say so in the first
place?
Regards,
Bruce