[From Rick Marken (2000.06.09.1430)]
I am not quite sure I understand you completely. I will appreciate
if you will look at my comments.
I think "will" (or "volition") is a consciousness phenomenon.
As long as I don't have a definition for the concept "will"/"volition"
it is a problem for me to have a point of view about "will" as a
consciousness phenomena or an unconsciousness phenomena.
I will comment this later.
I agree with Bill [From Bill Powers (200610.1944 MDT)]
As to the phenomenon of will or volition, I think the way to approach it is
to ask what people have been referring to by that word.
It certainly makes no sense to associate it with the "difference
between a perception and a reference level" (error signal), as
Martin does. Will is like an _independent variable_; to will is to
try to cause something to happen.
I don't understand why this is so certainly. I have re-read B:CP.
As I said, will (volition) does play a role in the HPCT
model; it is the output of the reorganizing system (see
B:CP, pp. 197-201).
As I understand PCT, a disturbance starts a control loop. If there
is no reference that co-operates with the perception,
reorganization will happen. After reorganization there will be a
reference. This reference will co-operate with an input and an
error will create an output and so on.
Memory may also start a control loop.
If "to will is to try to cause something happen" (as you write), and
[From Rick Marken (2000.06.10.1130)]
As I said, will (volition) does play a role in the HPCT
model; it is the output of the reorganizing system (see
B:CP, pp. 197-201).
Will this output next time or next next time establish a reference
in the HPCT? If so there is a chance to
associate it with the "difference
between a perception and a reference level" (error signal)
I guess this is a possibility.
The error signal is a variable
in a control loop; it is both an independent and a dependent
variable _at the same time_.
Is it correct that it is a dependent variable when we associate
it with the "difference between a perception and a reference level"
(error signal) and an independent variable when it is an intrinsic
error after the comparator where the intrinsic reference signal
is compared with an intrinsic perceptual signal.
The size of the error signal, in
other words, is both a cause and a result of actions of the
control system. This feature of the error signal doesn't
capture the "independent variable" sense of "will" or
"volition" for me.
It still does for me and I will comment it later.
The only variable in a control loop that functions as an
independent variable _and_ (unlike disturbance variables, the
other independent variable in a control loop) is inside the
system itself (which is presumably doing the "willing") is the
reference signal.
Am I wrong when I say a perception or an input in a control loop
is an independent variable?
But in a hierarchy of control systems,
even the reference signal is not a true independent variable
because it is part of a higher level control loop. This is
why I think of "will" (or "volition") as phenomena outside the
control hierarchy -- where consciousness dwells.
An independent variable in a system is an independent variable.
It doesn't matter if the same variable is a dependent variable
in an other system.
I am not sure if I care for the concept "true variable".
I will give an account of a practical situation back in 1992.
This is not research report it is more like a story. At that
time I didn't know about PCT, but I had read Norbert Wieners
et al's essay "Behavior, Purpose and Teleology"
At that time I did smoke. I did smoke after breakfast, after
the car was in motion, when I stepped out of a bus, when I met
other people who smoked, after lunch, when I had a problem with
a subject and more.
In this situations (and still more often) I lightened a cigarette.
Then I decided to stop smoking.
I made a formula saying " Earlier I had a smoke after breakfast (or
an other situation). Now I don't smoke any more. Therefore I shall not
have a smoke now. This time I remembered that I earlier had a
smoke after breakfast. Next time I shall not remember "my smoke after
breakfast" as well as I did this time. And next time I will not hook up
"end of breakfast" and the thought of a smoke""
This was the essence I told myself in different situations 20, 30, 40
times a day.
At that time my fundament for changing my behavior was a sentence
in Wiener et all's essay:
(I still remember the sentence) "The basis of the concept of purpose is
awareness of "voluntary activity". Now the purpose of voluntary acts
is not a matter of arbitrary interpretation but a physiological fact....."
At that time I understood it as I made a thought track which were steering
my behavior.
To day I think I understand PCT. And today I don't talk about "thought
tracks", I talk about references or intrinsic references.
End of the story. Back to "finding the will".
I think people who stop smoking have "a will". I think they have a lot
of references that co-operate with different perceptions.
They get more references for every day they stop smoking.
The more relevant references they have, the greater chance they have
to stop smoking.
And here is my point: The more relevant references a human being has,
the better chance he has to choose his own behavior. And he and other
people watching him will say he has "a will".
In the beginning of this letter I wrote:
"As long as I don't have a definition for the concept "will"/"volition"
its a problem for me to have a point of view about "will" if it
is a consciousness phenomena or also an unconsciousness phenomena.
I will comment this later."
Now I will say: I don't think the concept "will" is a necessary concept in
PCT.
I think it is better to talk about enough relevant references.
I will also say that the control loops function unconsciously.
Other people may say that I have a strong will not smoking when other
people smoke. To day I don't think about smoking. And I don't smoke.
Something happens unconsciously.
best
Bjoen Simonsen