EAB and spontefaction, Question for Hans

[From Rick Marken (960202.0800)]


But "control" as used in EAB doesn't seem to admit of being a reference
to the phenomenon of spontefaction.

Bruce Abbott (960202.0730 EST) --

No, it doesn't. This is a surprise to you?

Actually, I've been arguing that this is the case all along.


How, then, do EABers talk about the phenomenon that we now call
"spontefaction"? What do _they_ call it?


Regulation, homeostasis.

Are you _sure_ that EABers use these words to refer to _spontefaction_?

You can prove that they do use these words to refer to spontefaction by
showing evidence that the EABers say that if a variable A regulates or
hemeostats B, then for every disturbance acting on B, A will produce a change
in action on B that counteracts the effects of the disturbance (and, of
course, to qualify as spontefaction, regulation and homeostatis will have to
meet the other criteria that used to be called the Test for the Controlled

The Killeen system should just move to a new equilibrium state without
opposing the disturbance;

Well, there's your test! Time to hit the lab, eh?

Unfortunately, we cannot conduct this differential test until we learn what
the sfv(s) actually is/are.

In the model or in fact?

If Killeen's model is a spontefaction system then we can see what variable
it's controlling by inspection. And we can compare the spontefacting done by
Killeen's model to that done by actual organisms (Killeen must have observed
the behavior of the hypothetical spontefacted variable under disturbance if
he developed a model to explain spontefaction of that variable).

If Killeen didn't test to determine what variable is under spontefaction (so
we don't know the spontefacted variable in fact), then his control model is
an irrelevant fantasy and we have to do the research to determine what
variable (or whether any variable) is being spontefacted in the operant

My guess has always been that the latter is true -- that EAB researchers
never consider the possibility that a variable is being spontefacted -- and,
thus, they never test for the spontefacted variable, making all this analysis
of Kileen's model a rather tedious exercise in scholasticism.

Also, it may be difficult to get a clear differential prediction if
the introduced disturbance leads to what _we_ would term "reorganization" in
Killeen's model. I still have to work out mathematically how his learning
mechanism is supposed to affect the behavior stream and implement that in
the Killeen Machine simulation.

It's always something, eh?

Hans Blom (960202--) --

Hans, does the environment spontefact behavior?

Spontefact has been mathematically defined. I just want to see if you know
what phenomenon that word refers to.