control

[Bill_Powers1]

[from Mary Powers 9903.12]

John Appel:

You say "I wish we could find some way of getting together (control of
behavior and control of perception)".

There is no way. If that is what you want, you are not going to get it.
The position of the organizers of this net is that control of behavior is a
failed concept. Certainly people behave, and some of their behavior is
aimed at controlling other people - but one does not control other people by
controlling one's own behavior. One uses one's own behavior (varying it as
needed in an ever-changing world) in order to bring about the perception of
other people doing what one wants them to do. Behavior is a means for
achieving desired perceptions.

Right now you seem to be controlling for learning about PCT by talking about
how hard it is and asking people on the net to help you. This has gotten
very tiresome (for me, anyway). You can get Making Sense of Behavior direct
from the publisher at 1-800-559-6653 or through bookstores. It is kind of
inconsiderate of you to keep asking for someone to spend the time giving you
a tutorial in Perceptual Control Theory 101 when a text is already available
for any reasonably intelligent person to do a bit of independent study. I
suggest that you read it carefully and then come back to the net with any
questions you may have.

Mary P.

[Bjoern_Simonsen]

[Bjoern Simonsen(990317;22:50 EU-time)]

[From Rick Marken (990314.1850)]

Bjoern Simonsen (990314)

Behavior is any modification of an object, detectable externally

The problem with this definition of behavior (from my point of
view, of course;-)) is that it fails to distinguish intentional
from unintentional “modifications of an object”. PCT is mainly
interested in explaining intentional behavior, where externally
detectable modifications of an object are done on purpose

I agree with you that the broad definition of Behavior failes to distinguish intentional from unintential “modification of an object”.

But the main thing for me was to write my understanding of why control of
behavior is a failed concept.

Behavior is the “modification of an object”,

The part of this modification that is detectable externally is the only thing of the behavior that we perceive.

Therefore PCT is corect and BCT wrong.

Back to your poit of view, Rick.

For me there is no problem with the definition:

Behavior is any modification of an object, detectable externally

You have to classify the definition when you are going to use it with intentional or with unintentional “modifications of an object” (just as a.o. Norbert Wiener did).

1a. Active behavior is that in which the object is the source of the energy that makes behavior detectable externally.

1b. Passive behavior is that in which the object is not the source of energy that makes behavior_detectable externally_

If we stydy active behavior, we can classify it as

2a. Purposeful active behavior (intentional) may be interpreted as directed to the attainmentof a goal .

2b. Purposeless active (unintentional) behavior is that which is not interpreted as directed to a goal.

I prefere to work with/use the following definition of behavior:

Behavior is any active and purposeful modification of an object, detectable externally.

… You can’t tell which modifications of an
object are intentional and which are not by just looking at
the modifications. This fact is made dramatiaally clear (I
think) in the “Test for the Controlled Variable” demo at

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html

I suggest that you try this demo and then read the accompanying
text which explains how PCT allows us to tell the diffence between
intended (controlled) and unintended “modifications of an object”.

Yes it is difficulty to tell which modifications of an
object that are intentional and which are not by just looking at
the modifications.But the recognition that behavior may sometimes

be purposeful is unavoidable and useful.

This because the concept purpose is the awareness of “vouluntary activity”

And voluntary activity is a physiological fact in the brain.

I have tried your demo

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html

and I asked a colleague which squere I was controlling. And sometimes he gave the correct answer.

Remember Rick. I am new in the group. I need comments to learn.

Is it possible to see the program behind your demoes??

Bjoern

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (990318.0810)]

Bjoern Simonsen (990317;22:50 EU-time)]

I prefere to work with/use the following definition of behavior:

_Behavior is any active and purposeful modification of an
object, detectable externally_.

That's OK, but as Mary Powers (9903.18) notes, behavior involves
a lot more than modification of objects; it involves modification
of relationships, sequences, programs, principles system concepts,
etc.

How about "behavior is the control of perceptual variables"?

I have tried your demo

http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html

Great!!

and I asked a colleague which squere I was controlling. And
sometimes he gave the correct answer.

Yes. Because there are three squares you would expect his
guesses to be correct about 33% of the time.

The important thing to notice, though, is that he can't
really tell which of the three squares is being moved
intentionally; he can only _guess_. The computer, using
the Test for the Controlled Variable, _knows_ which
square you are moving (controlling); it doesn't have to
guess.

Remember Rick. I am new in the group. I need comments to learn.

That's great. I'm glad you want to learn PCT. I just
suggested reading my write-ups on the web experiments because
it does take time to create these posts and maybe some of
the work (in terms of answering your questions) has already
been done in the write-ups.

Is it possible to see the program behind your demoes??

Yes. I'll re-post the Java source to me site ASAP.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken