# Learning, environmental spontefaction

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-environmental-spontefaction/6297>\
**Category:** CSG1996\
**Created:** [February 6, 1996, 3:52pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-environmental-spontefaction/6297 "1996-02-06T15:52:21Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken)\
**Post date:** [February 6, 1996, 3:52pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/learning-environmental-spontefaction/6297/1 "1996-02-06T15:52:21Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (960206.0800)]

Shannon Williams (960206.00:30 Calgary time) to Bill Powers (960203.0500 MST)-

> You assume that there is a dynamic process ("the process of learning") and a  
> static result ("the result of learning").

I think that we have to assume that people learn \_something\_. Psychologists  
have assumed that that something is S-R associations (learning strengthens  
and weakens them), programs (learning selects the appropriate routines) or  
whatever. We suspect that people learn to \_control\_. We are aware that  
learning is very likely continuously occuring (we think we see evidence of it  
in brief bouts of "spontaneous" loss of control that sometimes occur in  
tracking experiments). But the process of control can become suffiently  
stable that it is possible to model it very accurately without taking this  
learning process into account (for the moment).

I think you have to have a very good model of the "something" that is learned  
(in our case, we're pretty sure that it's control) before you can test models  
of the process by which this something is learned. But if you can describe an  
experiment in which I could study learning per se -- without having to know  
what the organism is learning -- then I'd sure be interested in hearning  
about it.

Hans Blom (960206b) --

Me:

> Hans, does the environment spontefact behavior?

Hans:

> Herewith I declare that I refuse to participate in discussions that  
> use words that I'm not reasonably familiar with.

Me:

> Now I know exactly what you know about the phenomenon that we have been  
> calling (temporarily, I hope) "spontefaction"

Hans:

> You have a great imagination connection! Regrettably, it is not well  
> tuned...

No one was familiar with the word "spontefact" before Bill defined the  
phenomenon to which that sequence of letters refers. If you understood this  
phenomenon, you could have answered the question "does the environment  
spontefact behavior?" The fact that you didn't answer the question shows that  
you don't know the phenomenon to which the word "spontefact" refers. That was  
my conclusion above. Am I wrong? Do you, in fact, know the phenomenon to  
which the word "spontefact" refers but refuse to answer the question for  
other reasons?

Best

Rick