Hello Henry and CSGnet:
[From Bill Powers (2010.03.12 MST)]
I got CS and US mixed up: here is a corrected paragraph:
···
================================================================
BP earlier: There is fairly good agreement among CSGers that the US in classical conditioning is simply a disturbing variable that affects a
controlled variable, perhaps one that is controlled by an inborn
control system or perhaps by a learned one that is mistaken (by the
observer) for an inherited one. The prick of a pin disturbs some
input quantity and causes a signal for which the organism has an
inherited reference level of zero. The response to the resulting
error signal produces a motor action that opposes the effect of the
pin -- pulls the skin away from the pin. In SR psychology this is
looked upon as a piece of good luck for the organism but certainly
not as an "intended" result. In PCT it's just an inherited control
system, which can be modified by reorganization. Control of the US
(or its effects) can be improved by reacting to other variables that
anticipate the onset of the US, filling in the brief reaction time
and perhaps even keeping the US from occurring if the CS happens to
predict the US. So this says that classical conditioning amounts to
modifying the definition of the controlled variable by modifying the
perceptual input function.
=======================================================================
I think that's the only place I got them reversed.
Best,
Bill