[From Bill Powers 950630.2130 MDT)]
Martin Taylor (950630.1730) --
Most behavioural scientists, of whatever stripe, are interested in
finding out how organisms work. If you explicitly say that you are
interested only in the environmental part of the control loop, and
that what goes on inside the organism is "Any Old Control System
That Works," then you have asserted that what you do will be of no
interest.
Most behavioral scientists would lose interest even faster if I
presented a paper showing how the internal part of the control loop
works. They would say "What control loop?" If they don't understand that
behavior is control, why would they be interested in a model of how
control works?
In my years on CSG-L, I have not previously observed you to be
uninterested in what goes on inside the organism. I think you once
wrote a book with some suggestions about what might be going on in
there. But if one take's Rick's correct comment at face value, one
is led directly to the proposition that to determine the internal
structure of a perceptual control system is impossible, and that
anyone who tries to do so is a fool on a par with the inventors of
perpetual motion machines and angle trisectors.
Since you know that I am interested in what goes on inside the organism
and have constructed a number of working models of said insides, why do
you make such silly comments? I am interesting in seeing many things
done that I don't believe will be done in my lifetime. Before PCT will
make any general impression, thousands of scientists must understand why
we must look on behavior as a process of control, and what that means in
terms of observable relationships.
···
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Bill P.