[From: cc> Chris Cherpas (960913.1839 PT)]
[re: BP> Bill Powers (960914.1525 MDT)]
If you have a one-level organism with a
single fixed reference signal, it might be true that all behavior is a
response to disturbances, but even that isn't always true. Suppose the
control system is controlling a repetitive perception, like a perception of
walking. Even without any disturbances it is necessary to produce continuous
actions in order to maintain the perceived condition constant.
I would have thought that any error coincident with a change in the
input signal would also be called a disturbance, whether the environment
be inside the boundaries of an intact organism or not, whereas an error
accompanying a change in the reference signal would not be called a
disturbance...at least, this was intuitive for me, unexamined.
But perhaps we could focus on a single control unit for a moment,
in which case any change in input, reference, or both which is
related to greater error might be described as a disturbance.
Basically, the point is to ask for clarification on the vocabulary
I should adopt for talking PCT (better than jive talking, with
apologies to the Bee Gees).
Also, while it's correct to consider the internal milieu of the body as part
of the behaving nervous system's environment, that environment is not
usually observable from outside the organism. So as the internal
requirements change (the organism gets hungry or tired or thirsty, for
example), behavior can be initiated to correct the internal error without
any instigation from the physical surroundings.
You may have just answered my request for clarification.
However, one could metaphorically extend what is observable
in the external environment to the less- or un-observable
realm, assuming a default position that internal environments
are in principle no different than out-of-body environments
from the point of view of given control unit.
[re: RM>Rick Marken (960916.1320)]
My problem with "explaining conventional behavioral research" comes from
my fear that people will think "well, all this psychology research has
already been done, it's out there and everyone thinks it's important so
let's not worry about doing PCT-based research until we've got all the
existing research results explained".
As a former "operant bigot," I appreciate the value of maintaining
a "PCT bigot" stance on how to make the best of one's limited time
on the planet to answer questions about human behavior, the answers
to which haven't gotten a lot better since antiquity. However, the
realm of "interpretation" -- apart from the harder core of PCT
experimentation and theory development -- including the interpretation
of everyday behavior, tends to get into areas where much has already
been said -- and warrants some direct comparisons where available.
In other words, the conventional research may be a source for
comparing PCT to conventional interpretations of everyday
behavior, independently of whether it has a role to play in basic
PCT research.
Regards,
cc