FW: FW: Demonstration of control of behavior

Sorry to send post again. I made some crucial mistakes in previous. Please consider only this post. There are probably some more, but I hope not so crucial.

Boris

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List)
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 9:08 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: FW: Demonstration of control of behavior

Rick,

the main problem in your explanation of sheepdog controlling the behavior of the sheep« is manipulation and »cheating«. So I will not answer all your asnwers as it’s useless beacuse your answers are arranged to suit your purposese, so you are varying your output to »reach your goals – images« with your demo.

In your demo you are supposing that »dog controls behavior of the sheep«, and you say you are obviously showing that sheep behavior is controlled »by dog’s behavior (environment)«. So by determining the sheep output on environmental stimuli (dog’s behavior) you neglected »control of perception in sheep« and possibility that sheep is that who is setting references for it’s behavior« not dog, because output (behavior) of the sheep is known in advance. So sheep is not that who »chooses« behavior (setting references), dog is in your version of »control«.

But dog can not control sheep behavior, because dog can not predict what behavior (reaction) sheep will choose on the dog’s stimuli. If you would consider sheep’s control then you would have to show how sheep can vary references and »controlled variable« to establish desired perception. And that is not always »behavior« which dog »wishes« as you showed in your determined demo. Your demo of »controlling LCS works only in one case : if the references and »cotnrolled variable« is the same. In all other cases where will it be obvious that »controlled variable« and references are different, your demo will show that there is impossible to »control LCS« as in all Bill books is written. With your demo you proved just opposite what you wanted to prove. You proved what Bill wrote about control of LCS and what you said about it. That LCS can control but can not be controlled. Â

With determining sheep’s output from the environment (dog), you neglected »sheep’s control« and you make an ilussion of »dog control the sheep behavior« by evoking »wanted« motor output. But that is possible only in behaviorism with S-R logic, where »stimuli deterministically control behavior«, evoke determined output. And that’s what your demo shows. If you are 100% predicting output (behavior) on certain stimuli, you are totaly neglecting control process in LCS, and than we can probably really talk about control of LCS. So your demo can’t explain all other possible behaviors of sheep.

But tell me something, if you were running from the dog that tries to attack you, would you think of »eating baken chicken«. I think not. But you can probably try it.

So when the dog reduce the distance to the sheep, sheep is probably not thinking on »eating a grass«, but on it’s safety as you would. So »controlled variable« sheep »eating a grass« when dog is moving« toward it is practically impossible. So I advise you to see videos again and use them as basis for analysis, if you want to have at least a little scientific credibility.

The only real bases in this moment to analyse dog-sheep relationship are videos, unless we go to see it in the nature how dogs »control sheep behavior«. So we have to come as much as possible close to explanation what is happening on videos (in reality). But you didn’t see all the videos, to see what really happens. You used your imagination what should be happening to suit your purposes, and so you had troubles with finding sheep’s »controlled variable« as you said before. I understand why you had troubles. Becuase you had to find suitable controlled perceptions for the sheep so the demo would work, to realize your manipilation. There are many controlled perceptions for the sheep, seen on the video , but non is what you demonstrated in your demo. So your demo is imagined »construct« which suit your manipulative purposes.

As I said, the video is the only relevant bases for analysis, so we have to respect what is happening in »reality«, not in your mind as »perceptual illusion«.

  1.  So the dog's controlled perception (references for a wanted perception) seen from the video is »distance of the sheep to the spot (herd)« and
    
  2.   Sheep's controlled perceptions (or reference images as you said) are (seen on videos) :
    
  •      »distance to the dog«,
    
  •      »going away from the herd"
    
  •      "defending from the dog"
    
  •      "attacking the dog".
    

We must clearly see how sheep is controlling differently perceptions of the same stimuli coming from environment (dog’s behavior), so to see that sheep is varying output to establish wanted perception or reliaze it’s different purposes (sheep is setting the references for it’s behavior (perception), not dog). So we have to see that sheep is in »control« not »dog controlling sheep behavior« in relation »determined stimuli – determined behavior«. Annd again there is no »control of behavior« in PCT, it’s only control of perception. »Control of behavior« exist only in behavirosm and self-regulation theories.

In your demo you didn’t use any of those controlled perceptions for the sheep which are “really happening” because your manipulation probably wouldn’t work, as it would be obvious that sheep is controlling for it’s perception and dog for it’s perception which can vary. So why you don’t sit down again to your computer and make demos on the bases of video evidence for all the cases of sheep’s controlled pereptions on the same stimuli from environment (dog’s behavior approaching to the sheep). If you are talking the truth, you will prove it for any sheep controlled perception, not just for your choosen. I’m sure that we’ll have to see how dog and sheep are both controlling for it’s perceptions and there is no “control of behavior of LCS”. Anyway there si no “control of behavior”. It’s just “control of perception”.

And when you are sitting by the computer, making those demos, would you be so kind and demostrate us how student is not “controlled by the environment” (not reacting on stimuli) as you showed it to Barb. So demosntate us, when the dog is moved allong the axe, how student is not moving deterministically with the dog’s behavior (environmental stimuli). Let us say that dog is controlling perception of "attacking the student«. Then make us a plot of graph showing how »dog (environment) is not controlling student (LCS) behavior«.

So :

  1. dog’s controlled perception is “attack the student” or »bite the student« and

  2. student “controlled perception” is keeping the »safe distance to the dog" or any other controlled perception that would suit student reference »not to be bite by the dog« or other »safety perception«. The only reference that student can’t use in this situation is »keeping image« of eating.

Show us how student behavior is not »controlled by dog« or any other stimuli from environment ?

And please use all your advises you used to support Barb’s finding : »We have a weekly meeting, and today’s guest was from the counseling center (as a fly to the web, in my mind)! Of course, when she started talking about students reacting to environmental stimulus, I cringed. This affects me like chewing on aluminum foil«.

This is the same as sheep (LCS) is “not reacting to the environmental stimuli (dog)” with some in advance choosen behavior. Sheep and student are not controlled by the environmental stimuli or are not »reacting« to environmental stimuli. Barb’s conclusion is right for all LCS.

RM :

What we often notice about behavior are responses to disturbances to controlled perceptions and fail to notice that the responses only occur because people are controlling those perception. So we see a person get mad when someone butts in a line but fail to notice (or think it is too obvious to mention) that this happens only because the person has the goal of keeping their place in line. People who don’t care about keeping their place in line will not get mad given the same butting in line (“stimulus”).

HB :

Yuppi, you got it. »BEHAVIOR IS NOT RESPONS TO DISTURBANCES TO CONTROLLED PERCEPTION« So you see it’s your »perceptual illusion« that dog is »disturbing controlled perception« of the sheep and that sheep’s behavior is »being controlled« by a dog. You failed to notice that sheep behavior only occurs because sheep is controlling it’s perception, not being »controlled by a dog«. So you admitt it yourself that you were in »behavioral iluusion« not me. Or you want to contradict yourself.

RM :

Or we see increased purchases of an item when it is offered with an “incentive” like a reduced price but fail to notice (or ignore the fact) that this only happens if the person has the goal of paying as little as possible. A person who doesn’t care about the price of an item will not appear to be caused to buy it given the same incentive (“stimulus”).

HB :

So show us also with your demo how student is not “controlled by environment” with commercials by bying food with reduced price and so on.

If I try to conclude. Dog is controlling it’s own perceptions, sheep is controlling it’s own perceptions and student is cotnrolling it’s own perceptions. It is as it has to be. No »control of behavior« because there can’t be any control of behavior. It’s behavioristic, S-R- term and you are using it in your demo. If anybody is living in any iluusion, than you are, manipulating demos and others to suit your purposes of proving your stand point. You live in some kind of percpetual illusion that LCS can be controled by environment although you said it very clearly :

RM (once upon a time) : …LCS conttrol and can not be controlled.

HB :

And probably you will notice one thing more. When you are talking to Barb, you talk as dr. Jekyll, but when you are talking to me, you talk as »Mr. Hyde«. Two diferent approaches, two different parts of your personality, sorry LCS. So be always »dr. Jekyll«.

Best,

Boris

P.S. And if you once again change my initials from HB to BH (as that is the same as Bob Hintz) I’ll come to America and buy you a beer JJJ. This is a »threat« (attempt of control) as when you’ll drink one beer I’ll »force« you as »environmental stimuli« to drink some more. I will »control you«, of course if you will want so. JJ. It’s up to you what you will do on environmental »stimuli«, isn’t it ? But invitation stands. As you see I can »try to control« you with different means, but it’s up to you whether you will »accept control« or not. So is with other LCS (sheep for example, although it is probably not drinking beer) JJ.

[ From Rick Marken (2014.11.16.1050)]

···

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 2:22 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Sorry to send post again. I made some crucial mistakes in previous. Please consider only this post. There are probably some more, but I hope not so crucial.

OK.Â

Â

HB: In your demo you are supposing that »dog controls behavior of the sheep«, and you say you are obviously showing that sheep behavior is controlled »by dog’s behavior (environment)«. So by determining the sheep output on environmental stimuli (dog’s behavior) you neglected »control of perception in sheep«Â

Â

RM: The sheep’s output (it’s movement’s left and right) Â has no effect on the dog’s behavior. It only has an effect on the perception (of the distance between grass shoot and dog) that the sheep is controlling. So the fact that the sheep is controlling a perception is not only not neglected in the demo, it is essential to the dog’s ability to control the sheep.Â

HB:Â and possibility that sheep is that who is setting references for it’s behavior

RM: References specify perception, not behavior.

HB: « not dog,Â

RM: The dog (actually you, in the role of the dog) are setting a reference for a perception of on aspect of the sheep’s behavior – it’s position relative to the herd.Â

HB: because output (behavior) of the sheep is known in advance.Â

RM: Neither the sheep nor the dog knows anything about the sheep’s output in advance.Â

HB: So sheep is not that who »chooses« behavior (setting references),  dog is in your version of »control«.

RM: You are using the term behavior ambiguously. Here you use it to reference to the sheep’s reference for its controlled variable. In other places you use it to refer to the sheep’s output. When I talk about the dog controlling the behavior of the sheep I am talking about the sheep’s output (it’s varying horizontal position on the screen. The dog is certainly not controlling the sheep’s reference for the distance from grass to dog; the dog is only controlling the output the sheep uses to keep the controlled perception at it’s secularly set reference.Â

Â

 HB: But dog can not control sheep behavior,

RM: Before we go on I have to see whether or not you agree that the sheep’s behavior is being controlled in the demo when the sheep is being kept near the herd. If you don’t think the sheep is being controlled then we really are both just whistling in the wind.

BestÂ

Rick

Â

because dog can not predict what behavior (reaction) sheep will choose on the dog’s stimuli. If you would consider sheep’s control then you would have to show how sheep can vary references and »controlled variable« to establish desired perception. And that is not always »behavior« which dog »wishes« as you showed in your determined demo. Your demo of »controlling LCS works only in one case : if the references and »cotnrolled variable« is the same. In all other cases where will it be obvious that »controlled variable« and references are different, your demo will show that there is impossible to »control LCS« as in all Bill books is written. With your demo you proved just opposite what you wanted to prove. You proved what Bill wrote about control of LCS and what you said about it. That LCS can control but can not be controlled. Â

Â

With determining sheep’s output from the environment (dog), you neglected »sheep’s control« and you make an ilussion of »dog control the sheep behavior« by evoking »wanted« motor output. But that is possible only in behaviorism with S-R logic, where »stimuli deterministically control behavior«, evoke determined output. And that’s what your demo shows. If you are 100% predicting output (behavior) on certain stimuli, you are totaly neglecting control process in LCS, and than we can probably really talk about control of LCS. So your demo can’t explain all other possible behaviors of sheep.

Â

But tell me something, if you were running from the dog that tries to attack you, would you think of »eating baken chicken«. I think not. But you can probably try it.

So when the dog reduce the distance to the sheep, sheep is probably not thinking on »eating a grass«, but on it’s safety as you would. So »controlled variable« sheep »eating a grass« when dog is moving« toward it is practically impossible. So I advise you to see videos again and use them as basis for analysis, if you want to have at least a little scientific credibility.

Â

The only real bases in this moment to analyse dog-sheep relationship are videos, unless we go to see it in the nature how dogs »control sheep behavior«. So we have to come as much as possible close to explanation what is happening on videos (in reality). But you didn’t see all the videos, to see what really happens. You used your imagination what should be happening to suit your purposes, and so you had troubles with finding sheep’s »controlled variable« as you said before. I understand why you had troubles. Becuase you had to find suitable controlled perceptions for the sheep so the demo would work, to realize your manipilation. There are many controlled perceptions for the sheep, seen on the video , but non is what you demonstrated in your demo. So your demo is imagined »construct« which suit your manipulative purposes.

Â

As I said, the video is the only relevant bases for analysis, so we have to respect what is happening in »reality«, not in your mind as »perceptual illusion«.

Â

1.     So the dog’s controlled perception (references for a wanted perception) seen from the video is »distance of the sheep to the spot (herd)« and

2.      Sheep’s controlled perceptions (or reference images as you said) are (seen on videos) :

-         »distance to the dog«,

-         »going away from the herd"

-Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â “defending from the dog”

-Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â “attacking the dog”.

We must clearly see how sheep is controlling differently perceptions of the same stimuli coming from environment (dog’s behavior), so to see that sheep is varying output to establish wanted perception or reliaze it’s different purposes (sheep is setting the references for it’s behavior (perception), not dog). So we have to see that sheep is in »control« not »dog controlling sheep behavior« in relation »determined stimuli – determined behavior«. And again there is no »control of behavior« in PCT, it’s only control of perception. »Control of behavior« exist only in behavirosm and self-regulation theories.

Â

In your demo you didn’t use any of those controlled perceptions for the sheep which are “really happening” because your manipulation probably wouldn’t work, as it would be obvious that sheep is controlling for it’s perception and dog for it’s perception which can vary. So why you don’t sit down again to your computer and make demos on the bases of video evidence for all the cases of sheep’s controlled pereptions on the same stimuli from environment (dog’s behavior approaching to the sheep). If you are talking the truth, you will prove it for any sheep controlled perception, not just for your choosen. I’m sure that we’ll have to see how dog and sheep are both controlling for it’s perceptions and there is no “control of behavior of LCS”. Anyway there si no “control of behavior”. It’s just “control of perception”.

Â

Â

Â

And when you are sitting by the computer, making those demos, would you be so kind and demostrate us how student is not “controlled by the environment” (not reacting on stimuli) as you showed it to Barb. So demosntate us, when the dog is moved allong the axe, how student is not moving deterministically with the dog’s behavior (environmental stimuli). Let us say that dog is controlling perception of "attacking the student«. Then make us a plot of graph showing how »dog (environment) is not controlling student (LCS) behavior«.

So :

  1. dog’s controlled perception is “attack the student” or »bite the student« and
  1. student “controlled perception” is keeping the »safe distance to the dog" or any other controlled perception that would suit student reference »not to be bite by the dog« or other »safety perception«. The only reference that student can’t use in this situation is »keeping image« of eating.

Â

Show us how student behavior is not »controlled by dog« or any other stimuli from environment ?

Â

And please use all your advises you used to support Barb’s finding : »We have a weekly meeting, and today’s guest was from the counseling center (as a fly to the web, in my mind)! Of course, when she started talking about students reacting to environmental stimulus, I cringed. This affects me like chewing on aluminum foil«.

Â

This is the same as sheep (LCS) is “not reacting to the environmental stimuli (dog)” with some in advance choosen behavior. Sheep and student are not controlled by the environmental stimuli or are not »reacting« to environmental stimuli. Barb’s conclusion is right for all LCS.

Â

RM :

What we often notice about behavior are responses to disturbances to controlled perceptions and fail to notice that the responses only occur because people are controlling those perception. So we see a person get mad when someone butts in a line but fail to notice (or think it is too obvious to mention) that this happens only because the person has the goal of keeping their place in line. People who don’t care about keeping their place in line will not get mad given the same butting in line (“stimulus”). Â

Â

HB :

Yuppi, you got it. »BEHAVIOR IS NOT RESPONS TO DISTURBANCES TO CONTROLLED PERCEPTION« So you see it’s your »perceptual illusion« that dog is »disturbing controlled perception« of the sheep and that sheep’s behavior is »being controlled« by a dog. You failed to notice that sheep behavior only occurs because sheep is controlling it’s perception, not being »controlled by a dog«. So you admitt it yourself that you were in »behavioral iluusion« not me. Or you want to contradict yourself.

Â

RM :

Or we see increased purchases of an item when it is offered with an “incentive” like a reduced price but fail to notice (or ignore the fact) that this only happens if the person has the goal of paying as little as possible. A person who doesn’t care about the price of an item will not appear to be caused to buy it given the same incentive (“stimulus”).

Â

HB :

So show us also with your demo how student is not “controlled by environment” with commercials by bying food with reduced price and so on.

Â

If I try to conclude. Dog is controlling it’s own perceptions, sheep is controlling it’s own perceptions and student is cotnrolling it’s own perceptions. It is as it has to be. No »control of behavior« because there can’t be any control of behavior. It’s behavioristic, S-R- term and you are using it in your demo. If anybody is living in any iluusion, than you are, manipulating demos and others to suit your purposes of proving your stand point. You live in some kind of percpetual illusion that LCS can be controled by environment although you said it very clearly :

Â

RM (once upon a time) : …LCS control and can not be controlled.

Â

HB :

And probably you will notice one thing more. When you are talking to Barb, you talk as dr. Jekyll, but when you are talking to me, you talk as »Mr. Hyde«. Two diferent approaches, two different parts of your personality, sorry LCS. So be always »dr. Jekyll«.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

P.S. And if you once again change my initials from HB to BH (as that is the same as Bob Hintz) I’ll come to America and buy you a beer JJJ. This is a »threat« (attempt of control) as when you’ll drink one beer I’ll »force« you as »environmental stimuli« to drink some more. I will »control you«, of course if you will want so. JJ. It’s up to you what you will do on environmental »stimuli«, isn’t it ? But invitation stands. As you see I can »try to control« you with different means, but it’s up to you whether you will »accept control« or not. So is with other LCS (sheep for example, although it is probably not drinking beer) JJ.

Â

Â

Â

Â

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

bob hintz 2014.11.16.1330

If one describes the dog as controlling for a maximum distance of x between each of the sheep in the flock, does this disagreement disappear?

bob

···

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[ From Rick Marken (2014.11.16.1050)]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 2:22 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Sorry to send post again. I made some crucial mistakes in previous. Please consider only this post. There are probably some more, but I hope not so crucial.

OK.Â

Â

HB: In your demo you are supposing that »dog controls behavior of the sheep«, and you say you are obviously showing that sheep behavior is controlled »by dog’s behavior (environment)«. So by determining the sheep output on environmental stimuli (dog’s behavior) you neglected »control of perception in sheep«Â

Â

RM: The sheep’s output (it’s movement’s left and right) Â has no effect on the dog’s behavior. It only has an effect on the perception (of the distance between grass shoot and dog) that the sheep is controlling. So the fact that the sheep is controlling a perception is not only not neglected in the demo, it is essential to the dog’s ability to control the sheep.Â

HB:Â and possibility that sheep is that who is setting references for it’s behavior

RM: References specify perception, not behavior.

HB: « not dog,Â

RM: The dog (actually you, in the role of the dog) are setting a reference for a perception of on aspect of the sheep’s behavior – it’s position relative to the herd.Â

HB: because output (behavior) of the sheep is known in advance.Â

RM: Neither the sheep nor the dog knows anything about the sheep’s output in advance.Â

HB: So sheep is not that who »chooses« behavior (setting references),  dog is in your version of »control«.

RM: You are using the term behavior ambiguously. Here you use it to reference to the sheep’s reference for its controlled variable. In other places you use it to refer to the sheep’s output. When I talk about the dog controlling the behavior of the sheep I am talking about the sheep’s output (it’s varying horizontal position on the screen. The dog is certainly not controlling the sheep’s reference for the distance from grass to dog; the dog is only controlling the output the sheep uses to keep the controlled perception at it’s secularly set reference.Â

Â

 HB: But dog can not control sheep behavior,

RM: Before we go on I have to see whether or not you agree that the sheep’s behavior is being controlled in the demo when the sheep is being kept near the herd. If you don’t think the sheep is being controlled then we really are both just whistling in the wind.

BestÂ

Rick

Â

because dog can not predict what behavior (reaction) sheep will choose on the dog’s stimuli. If you would consider sheep’s control then you would have to show how sheep can vary references and »controlled variable« to establish desired perception. And that is not always »behavior« which dog »wishes« as you showed in your determined demo. Your demo of »controlling LCS works only in one case : if the references and »cotnrolled variable« is the same. In all other cases where will it be obvious that »controlled variable« and references are different, your demo will show that there is impossible to »control LCS« as in all Bill books is written. With your demo you proved just opposite what you wanted to prove. You proved what Bill wrote about control of LCS and what you said about it. That LCS can control but can not be controlled. Â

Â

With determining sheep’s output from the environment (dog), you neglected »sheep’s control« and you make an ilussion of »dog control the sheep behavior« by evoking »wanted« motor output. But that is possible only in behaviorism with S-R logic, where »stimuli deterministically control behavior«, evoke determined output. And that’s what your demo shows. If you are 100% predicting output (behavior) on certain stimuli, you are totaly neglecting control process in LCS, and than we can probably really talk about control of LCS. So your demo can’t explain all other possible behaviors of sheep.

Â

But tell me something, if you were running from the dog that tries to attack you, would you think of »eating baken chicken«. I think not. But you can probably try it.

So when the dog reduce the distance to the sheep, sheep is probably not thinking on »eating a grass«, but on it’s safety as you would. So »controlled variable« sheep »eating a grass« when dog is moving« toward it is practically impossible. So I advise you to see videos again and use them as basis for analysis, if you want to have at least a little scientific credibility.

Â

The only real bases in this moment to analyse dog-sheep relationship are videos, unless we go to see it in the nature how dogs »control sheep behavior«. So we have to come as much as possible close to explanation what is happening on videos (in reality). But you didn’t see all the videos, to see what really happens. You used your imagination what should be happening to suit your purposes, and so you had troubles with finding sheep’s »controlled variable« as you said before. I understand why you had troubles. Becuase you had to find suitable controlled perceptions for the sheep so the demo would work, to realize your manipilation. There are many controlled perceptions for the sheep, seen on the video , but non is what you demonstrated in your demo. So your demo is imagined »construct« which suit your manipulative purposes.

Â

As I said, the video is the only relevant bases for analysis, so we have to respect what is happening in »reality«, not in your mind as »perceptual illusion«.

Â

1.     So the dog’s controlled perception (references for a wanted perception) seen from the video is »distance of the sheep to the spot (herd)« and

2.      Sheep’s controlled perceptions (or reference images as you said) are (seen on videos) :

-         »distance to the dog«,

-         »going away from the herd"

-Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â “defending from the dog”

-Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â “attacking the dog”.

We must clearly see how sheep is controlling differently perceptions of the same stimuli coming from environment (dog’s behavior), so to see that sheep is varying output to establish wanted perception or reliaze it’s different purposes (sheep is setting the references for it’s behavior (perception), not dog). So we have to see that sheep is in »control« not »dog controlling sheep behavior« in relation »determined stimuli – determined behavior«. And againn there is no »control of behavior« in PCT, it’s only control of perception. »Control of behavior« exist only in behavirosm and self-regulation theories.

Â

In your demo you didn’t use any of those controlled perceptions for the sheep which are “really happening” because your manipulation probably wouldn’t work, as it would be obvious that sheep is controlling for it’s perception and dog for it’s perception which can vary. So why you don’t sit down again to your computer and make demos on the bases of video evidence for all the cases of sheep’s controlled pereptions on the same stimuli from environment (dog’s behavior approaching to the sheep). If you are talking the truth, you will prove it for any sheep controlled perception, not just for your choosen. I’m sure that we’ll have to see how dog and sheep are both controlling for it’s perceptions and there is no “control of behavior of LCS”. Anyway there si no “control of behavior”. It’s just “control of perception”.

Â

Â

Â

And when you are sitting by the computer, making those demos, would you be so kind and demostrate us how student is not “controlled by the environment” (not reacting on stimuli) as you showed it to Barb. So demosntate us, when the dog is moved allong the axe, how student is not moving deterministically with the dog’s behavior (environmental stimuli). Let us say that dog is controlling perception of "attacking the student«. Then make us a plot of graph showing how »dog (environment) is not controlling student (LCS) behavior«.

So :

  1. dog’s controlled perception is “attack the student” or »bite the student« and
  1. student “controlled perception” is keeping the »safe distance to the dog" or any other controlled perception that would suit student reference »not to be bite by the dog« or other »safety perception«. The only reference that student can’t use in this situation is »keeping image« of eating.

Â

Show us how student behavior is not »controlled by dog« or any other stimuli from environment ?

Â

And please use all your advises you used to support Barb’s finding : »We have a weekly meeting, and today’s guest was from the counseling center (as a fly to the web, in my mind)! Of course, when she started talking about students reacting to environmental stimulus, I cringed. This affects me like chewing on aluminum foil«.

Â

This is the same as sheep (LCS) is “not reacting to the environmental stimuli (dog)” with some in advance choosen behavior. Sheep and student are not controlled by the environmental stimuli or are not »reacting« to environmental stimuli. Barb’s conclusion is right for all LCS.

Â

RM :

What we often notice about behavior are responses to disturbances to controlled perceptions and fail to notice that the responses only occur because people are controlling those perception. So we see a person get mad when someone butts in a line but fail to notice (or think it is too obvious to mention) that this happens only because the person has the goal of keeping their place in line. People who don’t care about keeping their place in line will not get mad given the same butting in line (“stimulus”). Â

Â

HB :

Yuppi, you got it. »BEHAVIOR IS NOT RESPONS TO DISTURBANCES TO CONTROLLED PERCEPTION« So you see it’s your »perceptual illusion« that dog is »disturbing controlled perception« of the sheep and that sheep’s behavior is »being controlled« by a dog. You failed to notice that sheep behavior only occurs because sheep is controlling it’s perception, not being »controlled by a dog«. So you admitt it yourself that you were in »behavioral iluusion« not me. Or you want to contradict yourself.

Â

RM :

Or we see increased purchases of an item when it is offered with an “incentive” like a reduced price but fail to notice (or ignore the fact) that this only happens if the person has the goal of paying as little as possible. A person who doesn’t care about the price of an item will not appear to be caused to buy it given the same incentive (“stimulus”).

Â

HB :

So show us also with your demo how student is not “controlled by environment” with commercials by bying food with reduced price and so on.

Â

If I try to conclude. Dog is controlling it’s own perceptions, sheep is controlling it’s own perceptions and student is cotnrolling it’s own perceptions. It is as it has to be. No »control of behavior« because there can’t be any control of behavior. It’s behavioristic, S-R- term and you are using it in your demo. If anybody is living in any iluusion, than you are, manipulating demos and others to suit your purposes of proving your stand point. You live in some kind of percpetual illusion that LCS can be controled by environment although you said it very clearly :

Â

RM (once upon a time) : …LCS contrrol and can not be controlled.

Â

HB :

And probably you will notice one thing more. When you are talking to Barb, you talk as dr. Jekyll, but when you are talking to me, you talk as »Mr. Hyde«. Two diferent approaches, two different parts of your personality, sorry LCS. So be always »dr. Jekyll«.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

P.S. And if you once again change my initials from HB to BH (as that is the same as Bob Hintz) I’ll come to America and buy you a beer JJJ. This is a »threat« (attempt of control) as when you’ll drink one beer I’ll »force« you as »environmental stimuli« to drink some more. I will »control you«, of course if you will want so. JJ. It’s up to you what you will do on environmental »stimuli«, isn’t it ? But invitation stands. As you see I can »try to control« you with different means, but it’s up to you whether you will »accept control« or not. So is with other LCS (sheep for example, although it is probably not drinking beer) JJ.

Â

Â

Â

Â


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Rick,

It’s obvious that you understand that you made a mistake, and that you misleaded all the CSGnet with you behaviorism (Mr.Hyde) or self-regulation theory. I only hope that all on the CSGnet saw what is your mistake in thinking. It’s not that you don’t understand PCT, it’s the problem that you gave the same ponder to PCT (dr. Jekyll) and behaviorism or self-regulation (Mr. Hyde). And you are using once one and another time other theoy. So why don’t you simply stay dr. Jekyll (PCT thinking). I must admitt that I have limited laguage means to explain to you where you are missing the point. It’s pitty that you don’t understand my language. You would understand your crucial mistake in one minute J

So as I see from your answer which is neglecting all the rest of my post where the same point for LCS - control of perception is explained, it’s obvious that you understand what’s happening. And that was my goal. I’ll not answer you on your new provocations, as you made some more mistakes in your new writings. You will understand where are those mistakes, if you’ll agree that the same rules are valid for the sheep, dog and student and all other LCS. PCT is general theory of how organisms work. And you are trying to find »hair in the egg« in my American language. But you can’t change »the generality of my understanding of PCT«. I admitt you understand your language better than I do, and maybe it’s true that on some places I didn’t use proper wording to explain your confusion and mess you are making with »dog controlling sheep behavior«. But the goal is achieved, it’s obviously that you are thinking about it, and I hope that all others will too. I only don’t know what level of confusion you left on other PCT-er. If anybody is »whistling in the wind« than is you Mr. Hyde.

As the PCT is general theory about how organisms work, it’s obvious that my answer to your last question is the same as it was in all my writings which obviouly showed as right.  If no LCS can’t control other LCS than it’s obvious also that »dog in your demo can’t control sheep behavior«. Dog is controlling it’s perception, and sheep is controling it’s perception. Both control intersect as »gosammer threads« as Kent noticed. The case »dgog-sheep« or any case »LCS-LCS« has to be considered as Kent proposed : as collective control process not as behavioristic »control of behavior«. But that are the basics of PCT. And you as dr. Jekyll knows it clearly. So get rid of Mr. Hyde (behaviorism, self-regulation).

I’m only interested if you agree with what Bill and you (dr Jekyll) wrote about PCT and »control of LCS«. If you don’t please show me where you don’t agree. Similar texts can be found all over the Bill’s literature as it’s showing the main point of PCT . And your text too. So I don’t see where is the problem dr. Jekyll.

Bill Powers :

»There have been two paradigms in the behavioral science since 1600 AD. One was the idea that events impinging on organisms make them behave as they do. The other which was invented in 1930s, is control theory…… Control theory explains how organisms can controol what happens to them. This means all organisms from the amoeba to Humankind«….

Bill Powers :

The Asymmetry of control: »The circular relationship between organisms and environment is well known : behavior affects the environment and the environment affects behavior . On superficial consideration it may seem that we have a choice : the organism control it’s environment, or equally well the environment controls the organism. This is not true".

RM (once upon a time) : Organisms seem to behave on purpose. Psychologist before Powers had noticed the purposiveness of behavior. They saw, for example, that organisms produce consistent results using highly variable actions. But most psychologist ended up attributing this variability to “statistical noise”; Powers on the other hand, saw it as essential. If actions did not vary, behavioral results would repeat only by chance., fluctuating as a result of the random effects of environmental disturbances. Instead, actions vary to compensate for the effects of disturbances, producing consistent results in an incosistent world – a proccess called “control” .

RM (once upon a time) : Powers built a model of behavior based on control theory. Control theory is the wrong model of behavior if behavior is evoked motor output. But is the right model of behavior if behavior is control.

RM (once upon a time) : To understand the behavior of a living control system, the observer must learn what perceptions the system is controlling; what reference images the system is trying to match.

RM (once upon a time) : It takes a while to understand that control system compensate for disturbances rather than respond to stimuli; that stimuli are controlled and not in control ; that living control system control and cannot be controlled.

RM : (actually) :

What we often notice about behavior are responses to disturbances to controlled perceptions and fail to notice that the responses only occur because people are controlling those perception.

HB :

So I’d like to see where these statements are wrong. If you prove to me that they are wrong, I’ll beleive that »sheepdog can control sheep behavior«.

And Rick,

You can make huge contribution to PCT if you stay at PCT explanation of PCT, not behavioral or self-regulation explanation of PCT. With these you are making serious damage to PCT. So think it over and make right decision. I or anybody else on CSGnet can’t control you as LCS to do the right thing. You have to do it on your own. Only you can decide what you will do. No environmental stimuli can do it. But »stimuli« can help you make right decision.

Â

Best,

Boris

···

From: Bob Hintz [mailto:bob.hintz@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 8:36 PM
To: Richard Marken
Cc: Boris Hart; csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: FW: Demonstration of control of behavior

bob hintz 2014.11.16.1330

If one describes the dog as controlling for a maximum distance of x between each of the sheep in the flock, does this disagreement disappear?

bob

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[ From Rick Marken (2014.11.16.1050)]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 2:22 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Sorry to send post again. I made some crucial mistakes in previous. Please consider only this post. There are probably some more, but I hope not so crucial.

OK.

HB: In your demo you are supposing that »dog controls behavior of the sheep«, and you say you are obviously showing that sheep behavior is controlled »by dog’s behavior (environment)«. So by determining the sheep output on environmental stimuli (dog’s behavior) you neglected »control of perception in sheep«

RM: The sheep’s output (it’s movement’s left and right) has no effect on the dog’s behavior. It only has an effect on the perception (of the distance between grass shoot and dog) that the sheep is controlling. So the fact that the sheep is controlling a perception is not only not neglected in the demo, it is essential to the dog’s ability to control the sheep.

HB: and possibility that sheep is that who is setting references for it’s behavior

RM: References specify perception, not behavior.

HB: « not dog,

RM: The dog (actually you, in the role of the dog) are setting a reference for a perception of on aspect of the sheep’s behavior – it’s position relative to the herd.

HB: because output (behavior) of the sheep is known in advance.

RM: Neither the sheep nor the dog knows anything about the sheep’s output in advance.

HB: So sheep is not that who »chooses« behavior (setting references), dog is in your version of »control«.

RM: You are using the term behavior ambiguously. Here you use it to reference to the sheep’s reference for its controlled variable. In other places you use it to refer to the sheep’s output. When I talk about the dog controlling the behavior of the sheep I am talking about the sheep’s output (it’s varying horizontal position on the screen. The dog is certainly not controlling the sheep’s reference for the distance from grass to dog; the dog is only controlling the output the sheep uses to keep the controlled perception at it’s secularly set reference.

HB: But dog can not control sheep behavior,

RM: Before we go on I have to see whether or not you agree that the sheep’s behavior is being controlled in the demo when the sheep is being kept near the herd. If you don’t think the sheep is being controlled then we really are both just whistling in the wind.

Best

Rick

because dog can not predict what behavior (reaction) sheep will choose on the dog’s stimuli. If you would consider sheep’s control then you would have to show how sheep can vary references and »controlled variable« to establish desired perception. And that is not always »behavior« which dog »wishes« as you showed in your determined demo. Your demo of »controlling LCS works only in one case : if the references and »cotnrolled variable« is the same. In all other cases where will it be obvious that »controlled variable« and references are different, your demo will show that there is impossible to »control LCS« as in all Bill books is written. With your demo you proved just opposite what you wanted to prove. You proved what Bill wrote about control of LCS and what you said about it. That LCS can control but can not be controlled.

With determining sheep’s output from the environment (dog), you neglected »sheep’s control« and you make an ilussion of »dog control the sheep behavior« by evoking »wanted« motor output. But that is possible only in behaviorism with S-R logic, where »stimuli deterministically control behavior«, evoke determined output. And that’s what your demo shows. If you are 100% predicting output (behavior) on certain stimuli, you are totaly neglecting control process in LCS, and than we can probably really talk about control of LCS. So your demo can’t explain all other possible behaviors of sheep.

But tell me something, if you were running from the dog that tries to attack you, would you think of »eating baken chicken«. I think not. But you can probably try it.

So when the dog reduce the distance to the sheep, sheep is probably not thinking on »eating a grass«, but on it’s safety as you would. So »controlled variable« sheep »eating a grass« when dog is moving« toward it is practically impossible. So I advise you to see videos again and use them as basis for analysis, if you want to have at least a little scientific credibility.

The only real bases in this moment to analyse dog-sheep relationship are videos, unless we go to see it in the nature how dogs »control sheep behavior«. So we have to come as much as possible close to explanation what is happening on videos (in reality). But you didn’t see all the videos, to see what really happens. You used your imagination what should be happening to suit your purposes, and so you had troubles with finding sheep’s »controlled variable« as you said before. I understand why you had troubles. Becuase you had to find suitable controlled perceptions for the sheep so the demo would work, to realize your manipilation. There are many controlled perceptions for the sheep, seen on the video , but non is what you demonstrated in your demo. So your demo is imagined »construct« which suit your manipulative purposes.

As I said, the video is the only relevant bases for analysis, so we have to respect what is happening in »reality«, not in your mind as »perceptual illusion«.

  1.  So the dog's controlled perception (references for a wanted perception) seen from the video is »distance of the sheep to the spot (herd)« and
    
  1.   Sheep's controlled perceptions (or reference images as you said) are (seen on videos) :
    
  •      »distance to the dog«,
    
  •      »going away from the herd"
    
  •      "defending from the dog"
    
  •      "attacking the dog".
    

We must clearly see how sheep is controlling differently perceptions of the same stimuli coming from environment (dog’s behavior), so to see that sheep is varying output to establish wanted perception or reliaze it’s different purposes (sheep is setting the references for it’s behavior (perception), not dog). So we have to see that sheep is in »control« not »dog controlling sheep behavior« in relation »determined stimuli – determined behavior«. And againn there is no »control of behavior« in PCT, it’s only control of perception. »Control of behavior« exist only in behavirosm and self-regulation theories.

In your demo you didn’t use any of those controlled perceptions for the sheep which are “really happening” because your manipulation probably wouldn’t work, as it would be obvious that sheep is controlling for it’s perception and dog for it’s perception which can vary. So why you don’t sit down again to your computer and make demos on the bases of video evidence for all the cases of sheep’s controlled pereptions on the same stimuli from environment (dog’s behavior approaching to the sheep). If you are talking the truth, you will prove it for any sheep controlled perception, not just for your choosen. I’m sure that we’ll have to see how dog and sheep are both controlling for it’s perceptions and there is no “control of behavior of LCS”. Anyway there si no “control of behavior”. It’s just “control of perception”.

And when you are sitting by the computer, making those demos, would you be so kind and demostrate us how student is not “controlled by the environment” (not reacting on stimuli) as you showed it to Barb. So demosntate us, when the dog is moved allong the axe, how student is not moving deterministically with the dog’s behavior (environmental stimuli). Let us say that dog is controlling perception of "attacking the student«. Then make us a plot of graph showing how »dog (environment) is not controlling student (LCS) behavior«.

So :

  1. dog’s controlled perception is “attack the student” or »bite the student« and
  1. student “controlled perception” is keeping the »safe distance to the dog" or any other controlled perception that would suit student reference »not to be bite by the dog« or other »safety perception«. The only reference that student can’t use in this situation is »keeping image« of eating.

Show us how student behavior is not »controlled by dog« or any other stimuli from environment ?

And please use all your advises you used to support Barb’s finding : »We have a weekly meeting, and today’s guest was from the counseling center (as a fly to the web, in my mind)! Of course, when she started talking about students reacting to environmental stimulus, I cringed. This affects me like chewing on aluminum foil«.

This is the same as sheep (LCS) is “not reacting to the environmental stimuli (dog)” with some in advance choosen behavior. Sheep and student are not controlled by the environmental stimuli or are not »reacting« to environmental stimuli. Barb’s conclusion is right for all LCS.

RM :

What we often notice about behavior are responses to disturbances to controlled perceptions and fail to notice that the responses only occur because people are controlling those perception. So we see a person get mad when someone butts in a line but fail to notice (or think it is too obvious to mention) that this happens only because the person has the goal of keeping their place in line. People who don’t care about keeping their place in line will not get mad given the same butting in line (“stimulus”).

HB :

Yuppi, you got it. »BEHAVIOR IS NOT RESPONS TO DISTURBANCES TO CONTROLLED PERCEPTION« So you see it’s your »perceptual illusion« that dog is »disturbing controlled perception« of the sheep and that sheep’s behavior is »being controlled« by a dog. You failed to notice that sheep behavior only occurs because sheep is controlling it’s perception, not being »controlled by a dog«. So you admitt it yourself that you were in »behavioral iluusion« not me. Or you want to contradict yourself.

RM :

Or we see increased purchases of an item when it is offered with an “incentive” like a reduced price but fail to notice (or ignore the fact) that this only happens if the person has the goal of paying as little as possible. A person who doesn’t care about the price of an item will not appear to be caused to buy it given the same incentive (“stimulus”).

HB :

So show us also with your demo how student is not “controlled by environment” with commercials by bying food with reduced price and so on.

If I try to conclude. Dog is controlling it’s own perceptions, sheep is controlling it’s own perceptions and student is cotnrolling it’s own perceptions. It is as it has to be. No »control of behavior« because there can’t be any control of behavior. It’s behavioristic, S-R- term and you are using it in your demo. If anybody is living in any iluusion, than you are, manipulating demos and others to suit your purposes of proving your stand point. You live in some kind of percpetual illusion that LCS can be controled by environment although you said it very clearly :

RM (once upon a time) : …LCS control and can not be controlled.

HB :

And probably you will notice one thing more. When you are talking to Barb, you talk as dr. Jekyll, but when you are talking to me, you talk as »Mr. Hyde«. Two diferent approaches, two different parts of your personality, sorry LCS. So be always »dr. Jekyll«.

Best,

Boris

P.S. And if you once again change my initials from HB to BH (as that is the same as Bob Hintz) I’ll come to America and buy you a beer JJJ. This is a »threat« (attempt of control) as when you’ll drink one beer I’ll »force« you as »environmental stimuli« to drink some more. I will »control you«, of course if you will want so. JJ. It’s up to you what you will do on environmental »stimuli«, isn’t it ? But invitation stands. As you see I can »try to control« you with different means, but it’s up to you whether you will »accept control« or not. So is with other LCS (sheep for example, although it is probably not drinking beer) JJ.

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2014.11.16.2230)]

···

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 9:39 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Rick,

Â

HB: It’s obvious that you understand that you made a mistake

RM: I’ve made many mistakes. I have no idea which one you are referring to.Â

Â

HB: , and that you misleaded all the CSGnet with you behaviorism

(Mr.Hyde) or self-regulation theory. I only hope that all on the CSGnet saw what is your mistake in thinking.

RM: I think it would be great if people who saw my mistake in thinking would point it out to me. But from my perspective the only one of us who is making a major mistake in thinking (regarding PCT) is you. You seem to think that living control systems cannot be controlled. You think this despite the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that living control systems can be controlled: dogs can be trained to do tricks on cue, sheep can be herded, people can be led to vote against their best interests, etc. And yet you say that living control systems cannot be controlled because, according to you,  PCT says organisms cannot be controlled. This seems like a huge mistake to me. And if PCT actually said this – that living control systems cannot be controlled – then it would fail as a theory because it would be denying the existence of a phenomenon --control of behavior – that unquestionably happens. In fact, PCT explains the phenomenon of control of behavior; PCT explains why control of behavior works when it does and why it doesn’t work when it doesn’t. And it often doesn’t.Â

RM: This is why I said in my previous post:Â

RM: Before we go on I have to see whether or not you agree that the sheep’s behavior is being controlled in the demo when the sheep is being kept near the herd. If you don’t think the sheep is being controlled then we really are both just whistling in the wind.

RM: If you don’t think a sheep is being controlled when it is kept close to the herd by a sheepdog-- or that a dog is being controlled when it is taught to sit when you say “sit”-- that is, if you don’t recognize the fact that the behavior of living control system can be (and often is) controlled then, as I said, there is really nothing to talk about.

I suggest, therefore, that we see if we can agree on the facts before you start pointing out mistakes in my understanding of the theory that was developed to explain those facts. So do you agree that it is an observable fact that the behavior of living control systems can be controlled?

Best regards

Rick

Â

It’s not that you don’t understand PCT, it’s the problem that you gave the same ponder to PCT (dr. Jekyll) and behaviorism or self-regulation (Mr. Hyde). And you are using once one and another time other theoy. So why don’t you simply stay dr. Jekyll (PCT thinking). I must admitt that I have limited laguage means to explain to you where you are missing the point. It’s pitty that you don’t understand my language. You would understand your crucial mistake in one minute J

Â

So as I see from your answer which is neglecting all the rest of my post where the same point for LCS - control of perception is explained, it’s obvious that you understand what’s happening. And that was my goal. I’ll not answer you on your new provocations, as you made some more mistakes in your new writings. You will understand where are those mistakes, if you’ll agree that the same rules are valid for the sheep, dog and student and all other LCS. PCT is general theory of how organisms work. And you are trying to find »hair in the egg« in my American language. But you can’t change »the generality of my understanding of PCT«. I admitt you understand your language better than I do, and maybe it’s true that on some places I didn’t use proper wording to explain your confusion and mess you are making with »dog controlling sheep behavior«. But the goal is achieved, it’s obviously that you are thinking about it, and I hope that all others will too. I only don’t know what level of confusion you left on other PCT-er. If anybody is »whistling in the wind« than is you Mr. Hyde.

Â

As the PCT is general theory about how organisms work, it’s obvious that my answer to your last question is the same as it was in all my writings which obviouly showed as right. If no LCS can’t control other LCS than it’s obvious also that »dog in your demo can’t control sheep behavior«. Dog is controlling it’s perception, and sheep is controling it’s perception. Both control intersect as »gosammer threads« as Kent noticed. The case »dgog-sheep« or any case »LCS-LCS« has to be considered as Kent proposed : as collective control process not as behavioristic »control of behavior«. But that are the basics of PCT. And you as dr. Jekyll knows it clearly. So get rid of Mr. Hyde (behaviorism, self-regulation).

Â

I’m only interested if you agree with what Bill and you (dr Jekyll) wrote about PCT and »control of LCS«. If you don’t please show me where you don’t agree. Similar texts can be found all over the Bill’s literature as it’s showing the main point of PCT . And your text too. So I don’t see where is the problem dr. Jekyll.

Â

Bill Powers :

»There have been two paradigms in the behavioral science since 1600 AD. One was the idea that events impinging on organisms make them behave as they do. The other which was invented in 1930s, is control theory…… Control theory explains hoow organisms can control what happens to them. This means all organisms from the amoeba to Humankind«….

Â

Bill Powers :

The Asymmetry of control: »The circular relationship between organisms and environment is well known : behavior affects the environment and the environment affects behavior . On superficial consideration it may seem that we have a choice : the organism control it’s environment, or equally well the environment controls the organism. This is not true".

RM (once upon a time) : Organisms seem to behave on purpose. Psychologist before Powers had noticed the purposiveness of behavior. They saw, for example, that organisms produce consistent results using highly variable actions. But most psychologist ended up attributing this variability to “statistical noise”; Powers on the other hand, saw it as essential. If actions did not vary, behavioral results would repeat only by chance., fluctuating as a result of the random effects of environmental disturbances. Instead, actions vary to compensate for the effects of disturbances, producing consistent results in an incosistent world – a process called “control” .

RM (once upon a time) : Powers built a model of behavior based on control theory. Control theory is the wrong model of behavior if behavior is evoked motor output. But is the right model of behavior if behavior is control.

 RM (once upon a time) : To understand the behavior of a living control system, the observer must learn what perceptions the system is controlling; what reference images the system is trying to match.

RM (once upon a time) : It takes a while to understand that control system compensate for disturbances rather than respond to stimuli; that stimuli are controlled and not in control ; that living control system control and cannot be controlled.

RM : (actually) :

What we often notice about behavior are responses to disturbances to controlled perceptions and fail to notice that the responses only occur because people are controlling those perception.Â

Â

HB :

So I’d like to see where these statements are wrong. If you prove to me that they are wrong, I’ll beleive that »sheepdog can control sheep behavior«.

Â

Â

And Rick,

Â

You can make huge contribution to PCT if you stay at PCT explanation of PCT, not behavioral or self-regulation explanation of PCT. With these you are making serious damage to PCT. So think it over and make right decision. I or anybody else on CSGnet can’t control you as LCS to do the right thing. You have to do it on your own. Only you can decide what you will do. No environmental stimuli can do it. But »stimuli« can help you make right decision.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

From: Bob Hintz [mailto:bob.hintz@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 8:36 PM
To: Richard Marken
Cc: Boris Hart; csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: FW: Demonstration of control of behavior

Â

bob hintz 2014.11.16.1330

Â

If one describes the dog as controlling for a maximum distance of x between each of the sheep in the flock, does this disagreement disappear?

Â

bob

Â

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[ From Rick Marken (2014.11.16.1050)]

Â

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 2:22 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Sorry to send post again. I made some crucial mistakes in previous. Please consider only this post. There are probably some more, but I hope not so crucial.

Â

OK.Â

Â

HB: In your demo you are supposing that »dog controls behavior of the sheep«, and you say you are obviously showing that sheep behavior is controlled »by dog’s behavior (environment)«. So by determining the sheep output on environmental stimuli (dog’s behavior) you neglected »control of perception in sheep«Â

Â

RM: The sheep’s output (it’s movement’s left and right) Â has no effect on the dog’s behavior. It only has an effect on the perception (of the distance between grass shoot and dog) that the sheep is controlling. So the fact that the sheep is controlling a perception is not only not neglected in the demo, it is essential to the dog’s ability to control the sheep.Â

Â

HB:Â and possibility that sheep is that who is setting references for it’s behavior

Â

RM: References specify perception, not behavior.

Â

HB: « not dog,Â

Â

RM: The dog (actually you, in the role of the dog) are setting a reference for a perception of on aspect of the sheep’s behavior – it’s position relative to the herd.Â

Â

HB: because output (behavior) of the sheep is known in advance.Â

Â

RM: Neither the sheep nor the dog knows anything about the sheep’s output in advance.Â

Â

HB: So sheep is not that who »chooses« behavior (setting references),  dog is in your version of »control«.

Â

RM: You are using the term behavior ambiguously. Here you use it to reference to the sheep’s reference for its controlled variable. In other places you use it to refer to the sheep’s output. When I talk about the dog controlling the behavior of the sheep I am talking about the sheep’s output (it’s varying horizontal position on the screen. The dog is certainly not controlling the sheep’s reference for the distance from grass to dog; the dog is only controlling the output the sheep uses to keep the controlled perception at it’s secularly set reference.Â

Â

 HB: But dog can not control sheep behavior,

Â

RM: Before we go on I have to see whether or not you agree that the sheep’s behavior is being controlled in the demo when the sheep is being kept near the herd. If you don’t think the sheep is being controlled then we really are both just whistling in the wind.

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

Â

Â

because dog can not predict what behavior (reaction) sheep will choose on the dog’s stimuli. If you would consider sheep’s control then you would have to show how sheep can vary references and »controlled variable« to establish desired perception. And that is not always »behavior« which dog »wishes« as you showed in your determined demo. Your demo of »controlling LCS works only in one case : if the references and »cotnrolled variable« is the same. In all other cases where will it be obvious that »controlled variable« and references are different, your demo will show that there is impossible to »control LCS« as in all Bill books is written. With your demo you proved just opposite what you wanted to prove. You proved what Bill wrote about control of LCS and what you said about it. That LCS can control but can not be controlled. Â

Â

With determining sheep’s output from the environment (dog), you neglected »sheep’s control« and you make an ilussion of »dog control the sheep behavior« by evoking »wanted« motor output. But that is possible only in behaviorism with S-R logic, where »stimuli deterministically control behavior«, evoke determined output. And that’s what your demo shows. If you are 100% predicting output (behavior) on certain stimuli, you are totaly neglecting control process in LCS, and than we can probably really talk about control of LCS. So your demo can’t explain all other possible behaviors of sheep.

Â

But tell me something, if you were running from the dog that tries to attack you, would you think of »eating baken chicken«. I think not. But you can probably try it.

So when the dog reduce the distance to the sheep, sheep is probably not thinking on »eating a grass«, but on it’s safety as you would. So »controlled variable« sheep »eating a grass« when dog is moving« toward it is practically impossible. So I advise you to see videos again and use them as basis for analysis, if you want to have at least a little scientific credibility.

Â

The only real bases in this moment to analyse dog-sheep relationship are videos, unless we go to see it in the nature how dogs »control sheep behavior«. So we have to come as much as possible close to explanation what is happening on videos (in reality). But you didn’t see all the videos, to see what really happens. You used your imagination what should be happening to suit your purposes, and so you had troubles with finding sheep’s »controlled variable« as you said before. I understand why you had troubles. Becuase you had to find suitable controlled perceptions for the sheep so the demo would work, to realize your manipilation. There are many controlled perceptions for the sheep, seen on the video , but non is what you demonstrated in your demo. So your demo is imagined »construct« which suit your manipulative purposes.

Â

As I said, the video is the only relevant bases for analysis, so we have to respect what is happening in »reality«, not in your mind as »perceptual illusion«.

Â

1.     So the dog’s controlled perception (references for a wanted perception) seen from the video is »distance of the sheep to the spot (herd)« and

2.      Sheep’s controlled perceptions (or reference images as you said) are (seen on videos) :

-         »distance to the dog«,

-         »going away from the herd"

-Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â “defending from the dog”

-Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â “attacking the dog”.

We must clearly see how sheep is controlling differently perceptions of the same stimuli coming from environment (dog’s behavior), so to see that sheep is varying output to establish wanted perception or reliaze it’s different purposes (sheep is setting the references for it’s behavior (perception), not dog). So we have to see that sheep is in »control« not »dog controlling sheep behavior« in relation »determined stimuli – determined behavior«. And again there is no »control of behavior« in PCT, it’s only control of perception. »Control of behavior« exist only in behavirosm and self-regulation theories.

Â

In your demo you didn’t use any of those controlled perceptions for the sheep which are “really happening” because your manipulation probably wouldn’t work, as it would be obvious that sheep is controlling for it’s perception and dog for it’s perception which can vary. So why you don’t sit down again to your computer and make demos on the bases of video evidence for all the cases of sheep’s controlled pereptions on the same stimuli from environment (dog’s behavior approaching to the sheep). If you are talking the truth, you will prove it for any sheep controlled perception, not just for your choosen. I’m sure that we’ll have to see how dog and sheep are both controlling for it’s perceptions and there is no “control of behavior of LCS”. Anyway there si no “control of behavior”. It’s just “control of perception”.

Â

Â

Â

And when you are sitting by the computer, making those demos, would you be so kind and demostrate us how student is not “controlled by the environment” (not reacting on stimuli) as you showed it to Barb. So demosntate us, when the dog is moved allong the axe, how student is not moving deterministically with the dog’s behavior (environmental stimuli). Let us say that dog is controlling perception of "attacking the student«. Then make us a plot of graph showing how »dog (environment) is not controlling student (LCS) behavior«.

So :

  1. dog’s controlled perception is “attack the student” or »bite the student« and
  1. student “controlled perception” is keeping the »safe distance to the dog" or any other controlled perception that would suit student reference »not to be bite by the dog« or other »safety perception«. The only reference that student can’t use in this situation is »keeping image« of eating.

Â

Show us how student behavior is not »controlled by dog« or any other stimuli from environment ?

Â

And please use all your advises you used to support Barb’s finding : »We have a weekly meeting, and today’s guest was from the counseling center (as a fly to the web, in my mind)! Of course, when she started talking about students reacting to environmental stimulus, I cringed. This affects me like chewing on aluminum foil«.

Â

This is the same as sheep (LCS) is “not reacting to the environmental stimuli (dog)” with some in advance choosen behavior. Sheep and student are not controlled by the environmental stimuli or are not »reacting« to environmental stimuli. Barb’s conclusion is right for all LCS.

Â

RM :

What we often notice about behavior are responses to disturbances to controlled perceptions and fail to notice that the responses only occur because people are controlling those perception. So we see a person get mad when someone butts in a line but fail to notice (or think it is too obvious to mention) that this happens only because the person has the goal of keeping their place in line. People who don’t care about keeping their place in line will not get mad given the same butting in line (“stimulus”). Â

Â

HB :

Yuppi, you got it. »BEHAVIOR IS NOT RESPONS TO DISTURBANCES TO CONTROLLED PERCEPTION« So you see it’s your »perceptual illusion« that dog is »disturbing controlled perception« of the sheep and that sheep’s behavior is »being controlled« by a dog. You failed to notice that sheep behavior only occurs because sheep is controlling it’s perception, not being »controlled by a dog«. So you admitt it yourself that you were in »behavioral iluusion« not me. Or you want to contradict yourself.

Â

RM :

Or we see increased purchases of an item when it is offered with an “incentive” like a reduced price but fail to notice (or ignore the fact) that this only happens if the person has the goal of paying as little as possible. A person who doesn’t care about the price of an item will not appear to be caused to buy it given the same incentive (“stimulus”).

Â

HB :

So show us also with your demo how student is not “controlled by environment” with commercials by bying food with reduced price and so on.

Â

If I try to conclude. Dog is controlling it’s own perceptions, sheep is controlling it’s own perceptions and student is cotnrolling it’s own perceptions. It is as it has to be. No »control of behavior« because there can’t be any control of behavior. It’s behavioristic, S-R- term and you are using it in your demo. If anybody is living in any iluusion, than you are, manipulating demos and others to suit your purposes of proving your stand point. You live in some kind of percpetual illusion that LCS can be controled by environment although you said it very clearly :

Â

RM (once upon a time) : …LCS control and can not be controlled. <

Â

HB :

And probably you will notice one thing more. When you are talking to Barb, you talk as dr. Jekyll, but when you are talking to me, you talk as »Mr. Hyde«. Two diferent approaches, two different parts of your personality, sorry LCS. So be always »dr. Jekyll«.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

P.S. And if you once again change my initials from HB to BH (as that is the same as Bob Hintz) I’ll come to America and buy you a beer JJJ. This is a »threat« (attempt of control) as when you’ll drink one beer I’ll »force« you as »environmental stimuli« to drink some more. I will »control you«, of course if you will want so. JJ. It’s up to you what you will do on environmental »stimuli«, isn’t it ? But invitation stands. As you see I can »try to control« you with different means, but it’s up to you whether you will »accept control« or not. So is with other LCS (sheep for example, although it is probably not drinking beer) JJ.

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Â


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Erling Jorgensen (2014.11.17 1040EST)]

Rick Marken (2014.11.16.2230)

RM: I think it would be great if people who saw my mistake in thinking would

point it out to me.

EJ: The mistake I see is one of language. "Behavior" is such an ill-defined
word. Its referent seems to slide all over the place, according to where the
speaker happens to be looking at the moment.

EJ: In general, behavior in PCT refers to the output of a control system.
But the only place this actually translates into environmental action is the
outermost layer of control, where forces in the environment are generated.
All other outputs of other layers of control are specifications for the goal
that the next-lower level is to track toward.

EJ: I assume, when you claim "the dog controls the behavior of the sheep,"
that you are not claiming the dog controls the forces produced by each leg of
the sheep. What you are trying to get at is that the dog controls a certain
perceived outcome of the sheep's leg forces. When we state it with this level
of stiff precision, it becomes clear that we have to specify who is doing the
perceiving, and toward what outcome.

EJ: You rightly notice that if the sheep did not care about some perceptual
outcomes of its own, such as distance from dog, etc., it would not be
generating behavior (i.e., leg forces) to counteract the dog's disturbances to
those preferred outcomes. Because it does care about such things, perceptual
side effects that it does not care about -- e.g., the size of a clump of white
that the dog perceives as a flock -- become avenues for the dog achieving its
own perceptual results.

EJ: I realize this becomes a very stiff way of talking. But I think it is
preferable to the slippery scientific slope of claiming "behavior" is
controlled. And I think most of your own language demonstrates the same
inclination. It is there in the online description of your simulation, but
I'll take it from an earlier reply within this thread --

Rick Marken (2014.11.15.1340):
...If the sheep were not controlling for keeping the image of the dog near

the grass shoot, the movement of the dog would have no effect on the movements
of the sheep; the dog would then not be able to control the sheep's position
(keeping it near the herd). ...

...the demonstration explains what I believe is the essential observation in

the video: how the sheepdog can control the location of a sheep by moving
around. ...

...As I said, the variations in the sheep's position is the

"variability" ...

...The dog is controlling the position of the sheep relative to the

herd. ...

...another control system (you, in the role of a sheepdog) use variations in

a stimulus (the dog's position) to control the sheep's position. ...

EJ: In all these instances, you state the matter correctly. The sheep's
position gets controlled by the dog. "Position" is not a behavior.
"Location" is not a behavior. Either one is the _result_ of a set of
behaviors. Even a word like "movement" is technically not a behavior. It is
a rate of change in a perceived figure relative to a perceived background.
PCT keeps asserting that only perceptions get controlled. (And I add my sense
that "behavior" is not a particularly helpful word.)

EJ: I'm not sure about this final portion, but perhaps we could say that the
sheep's actions are part of the Environmental Feedback Function for the dog
controlling for its own perceptual results, that of having all the sheep in
approximately the same positional clump. I don't know if that mixes things up
too much analytically, because clearly the dog alters its actions to
compensate for the Disturbance provided by the sheep's actions, when its
perceived visual rate of change is not in the right perceived direction.

EJ: So you are right that the presence of control systems on each end of the
interaction might change the way we analyze the situation. But I would
definitely use different language than "controlling behavior." That's the
very direction we want to get away from, in my view.

All the best,
Erling

[From Rick Marken (2014.11.17.1610)]

···

Erling Jorgensen (2014.11.17 1040EST)–

RM: I think it would be great if people who saw my mistake in thinking would

point it out to me.

EJ: The mistake I see is one of language. “Behavior” is such an ill-defined

word. Its referent seems to slide all over the place, according to where the

speaker happens to be looking at the moment.

RM: I think that in this context “behavior” has a very clear meaning. I use the word “behavior” in the same way it’s used in the book that started this whole thing: “Behavior: The control of perception” (notice the word in the title there;-). In that book Bill uses the word “behavior” freely to mean what it means to ordinary human beings: what we see people doing. So rats pressing a bar, sheep staying near a herd, etc. are behaviors; things we see living organisms doing. We can get more precise in the denotation of the word “behavior” by measuring it. The precise meaning of “bar press behavior” is often how frequently a bar is pressed per unit time; the precise meaning of “sheep staying near herd behavior” could be the average physical distance between the sheep and the herd over time.

RM: So behaviors are measurable variables and we can determine whether they are controlled variables in the usual way: by seeing whether they vary less than expected when disturbances are applied. In the case of the sheep, for example, we know that the sheep stay closer to the herd when there is a sheepdog around than when one is not. So the distance of sheep to the herd is a controlled variable. This can be determined, by the way, without knowing anything about how the sheep works. That is, we don’t have to know whether or not the sheep is a control system to know that the “staying near herd” behavior of the sheep is a controlled variable. And it’s also pretty easy to see that this control is being exerted by the sheepdog, which is, therefore, unquestionably a control system.

EJ: In general, behavior in PCT refers to the output of a control system.

RM: I don’t think so. It certainly doesn’t refer to that in the the title of Bill’s book. It refers to what we see organisms doing. PCT is a theory that purports to explain what we are seeing when we see behavior. What we see as behavior, according to PCT, is a process of control – the production of pre-selected results in a disturbance prone environment – and that this controlling is organized around the maintenance of perceptual variables in reference states.

RM: In terms of variables in the PCT model of behavior what we are seeing when we see a behavior such as pressing a bar is output variables (such as the limb movements that press the bar) and controlled variables (such as the rate at which food pellets are delivered). PCT as described in B:CP, is not dropping the word “behavior” from our vocabularies or talk about behavior in new ways; it is about what behavior is (control) and how it works (negative feedback control of perceptual variables). .

EJ: I assume, when you claim “the dog controls the behavior of the sheep,”

that you are not claiming the dog controls the forces produced by each leg of

the sheep. What you are trying to get at is that the dog controls a certain

perceived outcome of the sheep’s leg forces. When we state it with this level

of stiff precision, it becomes clear that we have to specify who is doing the

perceiving, and toward what outcome.

RM: I don’t see this at all. The variable that is clearly under control in this situation is the sheep’s distance from the herd. I don’t have to know the ultimate cause of the variation in this variable in order to know whether or not it’s controlled. That is, I don’t have to know whether the sheep is a control system or not. It might not be. But what I can see in this situation is that the dog is controlling the distance between the sheep and the herd. The dog is clearly a control system and one of the variables it is controlling is the sheep-herd distance.

RM: It’s the same when the behavior that is controlled is that of a non-living thing, such as temperature. I don’t have to know anything about the physics underlying temperature in order to know that the behavior of the temperature in my house is under control. I do have to know that variations in the temperature inside my house are ordinarily affected by variations in the temperature outside it. So if the temperature in my house remains at exactly 68 F while the temperature outside varies between -20 F and 50 F (as it was wont to do when I lived in Minnesota) then I know that the temperature is under control.

R: I don’t have to know anything about the kinetic molecular theory of heat to tell that the behavior of the temperature is controlled in this situation. Same with the sheep. All I have to know is that, without a sheepdog present, sheep will wander quite far from the herd. So if the sheep tend to stay close to the herd – or are driven back toward the herd when they start getting “too far” from it – I can tell that their “distance from the herd” behavior is under control. I don’t have to know that the sheep is a control system in order to know this just as I didn’t have to know the kinetic theory of heat to know that the temperature in my home was under control.

EJ: You rightly notice that if the sheep did not care about some perceptual

outcomes of its own, such as distance from dog, etc., it would not be

generating behavior (i.e., leg forces) to counteract the dog’s disturbances to

those preferred outcomes.

RM: That’s because I was using the PCT model of the sheep to explain why the behavior of the sheep can be controlled by the dog; it can be controlled by the dog (by the dog moving toward or away from the sheep) only if it is controlling for keeping a minimum distance from the dog. If the sheep doesn’t care how far the dog is from it, then the dog cannot control the sheep by just moving relative to it. But that’s all theory. The fact is that sheepdogs can control the “distance from the herd” behavior of the sheep.

EJ: I realize this becomes a very stiff way of talking.

RM: Stiff and forced. It sounds like you are trying to talk yourself into believing that behavior can’t be controlled. Have you not seen the films of Skinner “shaping” the behavior of pigeons? Have you not trained your dog to “sit” on command? Have you not done the “rubber band” demo as E and moved your end of the rubber band so that S’s finger traces out a letter of your choice? You can’t theorize your way out of this. I understand why you might want to: it’s nice to think that we’re all free and can’t be controlled. But facts is facts. I think it’s better to try to understand why those facts exist than to try to talk your way out of them.

EJ: But I think it is

preferable to the slippery scientific slope of claiming “behavior” is

controlled.

RM: What you see as a scientific slippery slope (why, I have no idea) I see as one of the most well documented of all scientific facts.

EJ: And I think most of your own language demonstrates the same

inclination. It is there in the online description of your simulation, but

I’ll take it from an earlier reply within this thread –

RM What inclination?

Rick Marken (2014.11.15.1340):

…If the sheep were not controlling for keeping the image of the dog near

the grass shoot, the movement of the dog would have no effect on the movements

of the sheep;…

EJ: In all these instances, you state the matter correctly. The sheep’s

position gets controlled by the dog. “Position” is not a behavior.
… (And I add my sense that “behavior” is not a particularly helpful word.)

RM: OK, so we get rid of the word “behavior”. Then what is it that is being controlled in the sheepdog situation? It can’t be a “result of the sheep’'s behavior” that the sheepdog’ is controlling because we can’t use “behavior” anymore. So I guess there is no such thing as control of behavior because behavior is a bad word. So should we also change the name of Bill’s book to “I have no idea what to call it: The control of perception”?

EJ: I’m not sure about this final portion, but perhaps we could say that the

sheep’s actions are part of the Environmental Feedback Function for the dog

controlling for its own perceptual results, that of having all the sheep in

approximately the same positional clump.

RM: You’re sure going to a lot of trouble to say that it’s not the sheep’s behavior that is controlled;-)

EJ: I don’t know if that mixes things up

too much analytically, because clearly the dog alters its actions to

compensate for the Disturbance provided by the sheep’s actions, when its

perceived visual rate of change is not in the right perceived direction.

RM: Yes, the sheepdog is clearly controlling the sheep’s behavior.

EJ: So you are right that the presence of control systems on each end of the

interaction might change the way we analyze the situation. But I would

definitely use different language than “controlling behavior.” That’s the

very direction we want to get away from, in my view.

RM: What you mean "we’?:wink: I certainly don’t want to get away from it. “Control of behavior” happens all the time. And it is often – very often – a real good thing, when it is done consensually. Think symphony orchestra conductor, for example. What I think we should want to do is understand control of behavior, not deny it. And then we can see when it is good, when it’s bad and when it doesn’t matter. Making believe it doesn’t exist seems far worse to me than working to understand it.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Erling Jorgensen (2014.11.18 0815EST)]

Rick Marken (2014.11.17.1610)

Hi Rick,
EJ: So let me continue to play the Lone Ranger, to Tonto’s “What you mean
‘we,’ paleface?�?

EJ: The slippery slope that I see is this. PCT (that’s the ‘we’) has worked
very hard to get the camel out of the tent, by saying, “No, _perceptions_ are
controlled, not behavior.�? I believe your language of “controlling behavior,�?
now carefully reserved for other interacting control systems out there in the
environment, lets the camel’s nose back under the tent again!

EJ: I agree that there needs to be a general term for ‘stuff we do,’ and yes,
B:CP grabs the term “behavior�? to refer to that. So my Lone Ranger rear guard
action of trying to banish the term is not going to work. But B:CP then goes
on to show readers, in exquisite detail, that what a person is doing is not
what they think it is.

EJ: The term “behavior�? is a place holder, for whatever aspect of the doing
is currently under observation. Is it muscle forces? Joint angles? Turning/
reaching/pressing? In one of Bill’s writings he talking about “closing a
door,�? noticing that it said nothing about the actual mechanisms used - was it
by hand/shoulder/hip? Even a reasonably accurate naming of a behavior
specifies the controlled result. To say “I closed�? tells the reader close to
nothing.

EJ: So to my mind, “behavior�? holds a spot for an explanation, but does not
provide one. Even some of your own phrases come close to using behavior as a
dormative concept, as Dag used to use that term. For example:

RM: …the behavior of the temperature in my house is under control�

EJ: Why not just sayy “the temperature�? is under control?

RM: �I can tell that their "distance from tthe herd" behavior is under

control. �

EEJ: Again, why not just say their “distance�? is under control?

EJ: I’m not trying to be snippy or “play Gotcha�? by choosing a couple of ill-
considered phrases. I’m just saying that when we have the explanation in
place, drop the place holder.

EJ: You raise a fair question:

RM: OK, so we get rid of the word "behavior". Then what is it that is being

controlled in the sheepdog situation? It can't be a "result of the sheep's
behavior" that the sheepdog' is controlling because we can't use "behavior"
anymore.

EJ: I actually would prefer the more convoluted expression that what is being
controlled is “a result of whatever it is the sheep is doing.�? The reason I
believe this communicates better is because it almost forces upon the reader
that “what the sheep is doing�? is not the point (!) - neither to the dog nor
the sheep. It is only the result that really matters. FOR EXAMPLE, if the
rest of the herd wandered back to where the stray sheep was, the dog would do
no more to supposedly control the stray sheep’s behavior, because it was
already getting the result (by some other means) that it wanted.

EJ: Perceptual results count, with a perceiver to perceive them and a
perceiver to want them. That is what is controlled. The means of attaining
them are variable, and therefore incidental. Yes, the means are _utilized_,
but not controlled. That’s my view, at least. And I think I can add, so says
PCT.

EJ: Rick, I know we’re both operating with high gain here. To me, that says
we both love PCT; it’s like breath itself. I recall Bill writing to the
effect somewhere that a sign of a high-level System Concept is when people are
arguing over what to them are obvious “facts.�? That tells me this PCT System
Concept matters tremendously, to both of us. I am confident that that also
unites us, despite our differences over which facts best explain it.

All the best,
Erling

[From Rick Marken (2014.11.18.1400)]

···

Erling Jorgensen (2014.11.18 0815EST)Â

EJ: The slippery slope that I see is this. PCT (that’s the ‘we’) has worked

very hard to get the camel out of the tent, by saying, “No, perceptions are

controlled, not behavior.â€?Â

RM:I don’t think PCT is about trying to convince people that it’s perception and not behavior that’s controlled. I think it’s about the fact that behavior is the control of perception. PCT does say that behavior is not controlled by the environment but it doesn’t say that behavior can’t be controlled. It doesn’t say that because behavior clearly can be controlled.

Â

EJ: I believe your language of “controlling behavior,�

now carefully reserved for other interacting control systems out there in the

environment, lets the camel’s nose back under the tent again!

RM: In my tent we’re perfectly happy to talk about the fact that behavior can be controlled. And it can be controlled because behavior is the control of perception.

Â

EJ: I agree that there needs to be a general term for ‘stuff we do,’ and yes,

B:CP grabs the term “behavior� to refer to that. So my Lone Ranger rear guard

action of trying to banish the term is not going to work. But B:CP then goes

on to show readers, in exquisite detail, that what a person is doing is not

what they think it is.

RM: Right. It explains that behavior is control, not a cause effect process. It doesn’t show that behavior doesn’t exist.

Â

EJ: The term “behavior� is a place holder, for whatever aspect of the doing

is currently under observation.Â

RM: I think of it as a word that, like other words, points to perceptions, like of people walking, talking and playing chess. Those are behaviors. PCT shows that those behaviors are control processes and that what is being controlled are perceptual representations of the perceptual results.Â

EJ: Is it muscle forces? Joint angles? Turning/

reaching/pressing?Â

RM: It’s whatever you are pointing to with the word “behavior”. All of those are behavioral variables.

Â

EJ: In one of Bill’s writings he talking about “closing a

door,� noticing that it said nothing about the actual mechanisms used - was it

by hand/shoulder/hip? Even a reasonably accurate naming of a behavior

specifies the controlled result. To say “I closed� tells the reader close to

nothing.

RM: Bill showed that the perceptions we point to as behaviors involve (and typically are) both means and ends. So “closing a door” is both an end (getting the door to the state “closed”) and a means (of keeping people out of the house, perhaps).Â

Â

EJ: So to my mind, “behavior� holds a spot for an explanation, but does not

provide one.Â

RM: I see the word “behavior” as a pointer to an observation; to a perception. Of course it’s not an explanation. The word points to perceptions that we want to explain. The explanation of the perceptions pointed to by the word “behavior” (at least when we are referring to the behavior of living organisms) is the PCT model.

EJ: Even some of your own phrases come close to using behavior as a

dormative concept, as Dag used to use that term. For example:

RM: …the behavior of the temperature in my house is under contrrol…

RM: The word “behaviorr” is not used as an explanation here. It is used to make clear that temperature is a variable; temperature behaves by varying over time.Â

Â

EJ: Why not just say “the temperature� is under control?

RM: We typically do just refer to “temperature” as being controlled. But saying “behavior of temperature” just makes it clear that temperature is variable – something that behaves by changing value over time.

Â

RM: …I can tell that their “distance from the herd” behavior is under

control. …

EJ: Again, why not just say their “distance� is under control?

RM: Again, to make it clear that “distance from the herd” is a variable – it behaves by varying in value over time. It varies less when it is controlled.

Â

EJ: I’m not trying to be snippy or “play Gotcha� by choosing a couple of ill-

considered phrases. I’m just saying that when we have the explanation in

place, drop the place holder.

RM: What you call “a place holder” I call a word that points to the phenomenon to be explained. Behavior is the phenomenon to be explained and PCT is the explanation.

EJ:Â I actually would prefer the more convoluted expression that what is being

controlled is “a result of whatever it is the sheep is doing.â€?Â

RM: Actually, that would incorrect. What is being controlled (the sheep’s location relative to the herd) is the means the sheep uses to produce a result: keeping the image of the dog behind the grass shoot. It is also a result of the sheep’s muscle contractions, but that’s not what makes it controllable. What makes it possible to control the sheep’s location relative to the herd is that it is the means the sheep uses to control a result (perception of the dog-grass distance) that is disturbed by the location of the dog.

Â

EJ: The reason I

believe this communicates better is because it almost forces upon the reader

that “what the sheep is doing� is not the point (!)

RM: OK, but that doesn’t change the fact that what the sheep is doing (changing its location relative to the herd) is being controlled.Â

Â

EJ: - neither to the dog nor

the sheep. It is only the result that really matters. FOR EXAMPLE, if the

rest of the herd wandered back to where the stray sheep was, the dog would do

no more to supposedly control the stray sheep’s behavior, because it was

already getting the result (by some other means) that it wanted.

RM: Yes, while a controlled variable is at it’s reference state and all influences on that state are constant the controller does not need to do anything to keep the controlled variable in its state. But the controlled variable – the sheep’s behavior in this case – is still under control.Â

Â

EJ:Â Perceptual results count, with a perceiver to perceive them and a

perceiver to want them. That is what is controlled. The means of attaining

them are variable, and therefore incidental. Yes, the means are utilized,

but not controlled. That’s my view, at least. And I think I can add, so says

PCT.

RM: Yes, of course that’s true. But that is not relevant to the question of whether behavior can be controlled or not. The fact that the sheep is a perceptual control system doesn’t magically free it from having it’s behavior controlled. I think maybe that’s what you guys are trying to say; Â that the sheep’s behavior is not being controlled because the sheep is controlling it’s own perceptions. But the fact that the sheep is controlling it’s own perception – and doing it well – doesn;t mean that it’s behavior is not being controlled.

The situation is exactly the same as that in the rubber band demonstration of control of behavior which is described on p. 245 of B:CP, 2nd Edition. In this demonstration E is equivalent to the dog and S is equivalent to the sheep. E can control the position of S’s finger, just as the dog can control the position of the sheep, by disturbing a perception (of the knot being on top of a coin) that is controlled by S. S is able to control the perception of knot on coin but in so doing his finger position can be controlled by E.Â

In this demonstration E is controlling his perception (of S’s behavior) and S is controlling his (of the relation between knot and coin). Indeed, what the demo shows is that E is able to control S’s behavior because S is controlling his perception of the knot on the coin. Powers even says that this is a demonstration of “control by manipulation” (para. 2, p. 245, B:CP).

Â

EJ: Rick, I know we’re both operating with high gain here. To me, that says

we both love PCT; it’s like breath itself.

Well, I think it’s a great theory but I Â think it’s very important for scientists (and people with a scientific approach to life) to try not to fall in love with their theories because tests may prove those theories to be wrong. What I think we should be in love with is testing the theory and applying it (to the extent that it keeps passing the tests).

 EJ: I recall Bill writing to the

effect somewhere that a sign of a high-level System Concept is when people are arguing over what to them are obvious “facts.� That tells me this PCT System Concept matters tremendously, to both of us. I am confident that that also unites us, despite our differences over which facts best explain it.

RM: I’m less interested in being “united” than in getting the facts and the theory right. You and Kent are very nice guys and I hope that you know that I like you guys very much. I just disagree with what you are saying about control of behavior. But you guys argue your points fairly without ad hominum attacks(at least in public;-) so my disagreement with you doesn’t affect my liking for you. I hope you know that and that you feel the same about me.

Best regards

Rick

All the best,

Erling


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble