Circular causation

[From Bruce Abbott (960912.1425 EST)]

Rick Marken (960912.1300) --

Circular causation means that all variables in the causal loop are both
cause and effect _at the same time_; in a closed loop it is impossible to
point to two variables (x and y) and say "that variable (say, x) is the cause
of variations in that variabke (y)". This is because x is a cause of y _at
the same time_ that x is an effect of y. The notion that the causes of
behavior "lurk" within a control loop is very misleading because it leads one
to think that behavior _does_ have causes.

Want to run that by me again, Rick? I could _swear_ you just said that "x"
(e.g., disturbance) is a cause of y" (e.g., behavior) AND that it would be
misleading to suggest that behavior _does_ have causes.

But I thought you knew that;-(

I know what circular causation is. I also know that circular causation is
still causation. You seem to be having difficulty with that part.

The term "behavior" itself is ambiguous. It is true that disturbances cause
behavior when "behavior" means "output effect on a controlled variable" or
just "output".

And, of course, that is exactly what I mean by "behavior." Now you are
agreeing with me that behavior DOES have causes. Boy, _someone_ is confused
here, and it sure ain't me . . .

The causes of output are not the "causes
of behavior" that psychologists are looking for (and think they are
discovering); psychologists are looking for "causes of behavior" that have
their effects via the organism; these are the "causes of behavior" that do
not exist.

I thought you knew that;-(

I do, but you didn't SAY that. You said, flatly, that behavior is uncaused.
And, of course, that ain't so.

It is also true that, when control is good, inner references can be said
to cause behavior when "behavior" means "controlled perceptual variable".
The causal path that mediates this "behavior" does go through the organism--
the reference signal and controlled perception are both inside the
organism -- but, again, the causal influence of reference (purposes) on
perceptual input is not the kind of "cause of behavior" psychologists are
looking for.

I thought you knew that, too;-(

I do, but ditto my previous comment. What you _said_ was that behavior has
no causes. If you had said what you _now_ say, I wouldn't have disagreed.

I thought you knew that. ;-(

Regards,

Bruce

[From Rick Marken (960912.1600)]

Bruce Abbott (960912.1425 EST) --

Want to run that by me again, Rick? I could _swear_ you just said that "x"
(e.g., disturbance) is a cause of y" (e.g., behavior) AND that it would be
misleading to suggest that behavior _does_ have causes.

Sorry to be confusing. In an earlier post I said that psychologists are
mistakenly looking for the "causes of behavior". I meant that phrase to be
interpreted the way a conventional psychologist would interpret it; "causes
of behavior" are the internal or external events that cause responses _via
the organism_. My point was that psychologists, in their misguided search for
the "causes of behavior" that have overlooked what is most important about
behavior behavior: the "variables controlled by behavior".

I know what circular causation is. I also know that circular causation is
still causation. You seem to be having difficulty with that part.

Yes. 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 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). This would mean that the person is
interested in studying g() -- the nature of the environmental connection
between s and r -- a relationship that has _nothing_ to do with the nature of
the organism. This is like studying the relationship between disturbance (s)
and output (r) in the rubber band demo so that you can measure the elasticity
of the rubber bands. There's nothing wrong with studying the elasticity of
rubber bands but is that really why a psycholgist wants to study 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.
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. 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.

You said, flatly, that behavior is uncaused.

I don't know that I said that. I'll go with "acausal". 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.

Best

Rick