[Hans Blom, 960129b]
(Rick Marken (960126.1000))
... what we control (do) is partially determined by the outside
world (disturbances).
I had the impression that PCT poses a difference between what we
control and what we do. Here you seem to equate the two. Why?
Of course, PCT would say that what we do is _also_ determined by the
setting of our reference signals. But, given a particular reference
setting for a controlled perception, the means we use (the lower
level goals) to keep that perception under control _are_ determined
by the outside world.
That was what I intended to say: lower level goals are (partly)
determined by the outside world.
What the outside world (or the experience thereof) does NOT do is
_control_ what what we do.
This confuses me. If the outside world (partly) determines reference
levels, it -- by implication -- controls what the organism controls
for. Agreed thus far?
Now perform the following thought experiment. Someone (an experi-
menter) somehow changes a rat's world, e.g. by offering food. That
change is perceived, and it influences (partly determines) some lower
level goal, e.g. start feeding instead of running. This goal in turn
determines what the rat controls for (feeding), and, given the rat's
output functions (muscles capable of bringing food to mouth) and the
world's transfer function (pellets of food can be ingested), what the
rat does. The latter says that the outside world determines what the
rat DOES; the former that the outside world even determines what the
rat WANTS. That is what I wanted to say.
Psychologists often speak of "the environment controlling behavior"
or "the controlling stimuli".
So what is wrong about this?
I think we (PCTers and quasi-PCTers) all agree that the environment
(or our experience thereof) does _not_ control our behavior.
What is the definition of "control" that is both consistent with this
remark and with the fact that in the PCT hierarchy (lower level)
references have values that depend upon (perceptions of) the world?
When the nature of control is explained to psychologists, I think
most of them would agree that the environment does not control
behavior.
Again, what do you mean by "control" in this context?
So then the question becomes "does anything control anything else?
Is there purpose in the universe?" This is the question that I
believe PCT answers with a resounding "yes"
... because PCT has "purpose" as an explanatory concept ...
and that conventional psychology answers with a resounding "huh?".
... whereas some other branches of psychology discard "purpose" as a
non-referential concept that could explain anything and thus nothing.
Behaviorism, if I remember well, started as a movement that wanted to
eliminate untestable notions. Even though we now recognize that they
threw out the baby with the bath water, that is also PCT's major
goal, if I accurately interpret many of these discussions.
So let's see if we can agree on this (very limited) definition:
Control is the process that attempts to bring some perception toward
some reference level.
Now, if the world also partly influences that reference level, might
we not say that the world (partly) controls?
Greetings,
Hans