[From RIck Marken (960122.2130)]
Bruce Abbott (960122.2115 EST) --
The real problem for Killeen's scheme is a familiar one: defining
"responses."
Another problem, just as real but somewhat less familiar, is
defining the _controlled variable_. Of course, Killeen doesn't
know he has this problem; and he'll remain comfortably unaware
of it as long as he focuses only on explaining the results
of research that ignores the possibility of the existence of
controlled variables; ie. all conventional operant research.
The pigeon is pecking the key, not because some incentive has forced
it to emit a forward-thrust of the head, but because it wants to repeat
the act of striking the key with its beak.
Actually, it probably wants to repeat the _perception_ of striking the
key; and it probably wants to repeat it so that it can keep perceiving
the "incentive" at the desired level. But these are empirical, not
theoretical, possibilities.
An important theoretical question to resolve is how the delivery of the
incentive leads to the establishment of this reference.
The important theoretical question to resolve, I believe, is
_whether_ delivery of the incentive leads to the establishment
of a reference for perceiving the key struck. The theoretical answer,
I believe, will be an emphatic (and maddening) "no"; the delivery
of the incentive does not "lead" to the establishment of a reference
for perceiving the key struck (if this reference exists); rather, the
reference for perceiving the key struck is established (by the
reorganization control system) because it allows control of the
delivery of the "incentive".
Best
Rick