[From Bob C.(980614.1122 PT)]
Rick Marken (980613.1245)]
Control theory suggests an interesting alternative to the "natural
selection" model of evolution; I'd call it "purposeful selection".
In natural selection, the selecting is done by the environment;
variants that survive and reproduce are selected. In purposeful
selection, the selecting is done by the organisms themselves;
variants that allow good control are selected because they reproduce
sans mutation; variants that allow only poor control are not
selected because they are more likely to reproduce with (not
necessarily "good") mutation.
I'm not sure how much neo-darwininian theory would have to be altered to be
consistent with PCT, and I'm more interested in seeing a selectionist model
consistent with PCT. I think that the question of whether selection is
internal or external is probably one of those misleading dichotomized
questions. Perhaps main stream evolutionary psychologists have emphasized the
external too much, but it seems to me that both have to be considered.
Effective control is essential for successful survival and reproduction.
Varying reference levels and reorganization occur inside the organism, but the
control loops go through the external world. Disturbances, external, are one
of the independent variables influencing the ability to control. Another
consideration is that the environment includes many control systems
interacting often in mutually disturbing ways. Perhaps this is why the
language is more external with words like social landscapes. Another
consideration is that internalized memories of disturbances and other
interactions and the relationships drawn from them play a big role in the
ability to figure out how to control via imagination and reorganization. Would
the origin of this be considered internal or external?
Tracy Harms
How much on evolutionary epistemology have you read?
Some articles by David Buss, The Adapted Mind, The Moral Animal, Evolutionary
Epistemology, With out Miracles, parts of other books like Reinventing Darwin,
Conflict and Cooperation in General Evolutionary Processes, and some related
books on Complexity.
Will you be attending the CSG conference in Vancouver BC next month?
I don't currently have plans to. Exactly when is it?
If you've been on the list for awhile you've probably seen me rave about
the work of Peter Munz. To my eye it is nothing less than
state-of-the-art.
I don't Recall this, but I havn't been been following so closely. What do you
like about his work?
Universal Error Curve ... (giving up)
Why does the "Universal Error Curve" need to be invoked in order to explain
giving up? Is it merely a fancy name for the phenomena of giving up? Why not
try to explain giving up with typical PCT language. For instance, giving up
occurs because trying to control a variable like acquiring snacks, disturbs or
is imagined to disturb other variables like not expending to much effort and
conflict occurs, and then the reference for snacks gets lowered by a higher
level or through reorganization. Why is this not sufficient?
Bob C.