# Living and illusion

**URL:** http://discourse.iapct.org/t/living-and-illusion/6466
**Category:** CSG1995
**Created:** [November 30, 1995, 9:37pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/living-and-illusion/6466 "1995-11-30T21:37:09Z")
**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: [November 30, 1995, 9:37pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/living-and-illusion/6466/1 "1995-11-30T21:37:09Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (951130.1330)]

Martin Taylor (951129 14:00)--

> I have a bone to pick on one issue that tends to recur on CSG-L.

I agree with you completely. You are right to take me to task. I did not  
express myself clearly when I said:

> For example, you conclude that differential responding to the pictures  
> reflects the organism's ability to discriminate the pictures; different o's  
> result from different values of s because the bird can disciminate different  
> values of s.

By putting it this way I just muddled the issue .

I was TRYING to say that, in a conventional experiment, the stimulus (s)  
variable seems to cause the response (o) variable via the organism. That  
is, it appears that o = f(s). In the Herrnstein experiment, for example, the  
picture variable (s) seems to cause the pecking variable (o) via the pigeon;  
different values of picture ("girlfriend" or "not girlfriend") seem to cause  
different values if pecking ("pecking" or "not pecking").

But it is likely that s is actually a disturbance to a controlled variable  
(q). q is protected from the effects of the disturbance by o. When this  
is true, the relationship between s and o reflects characteristics of the  
feedback function, not the behaving system. That is, o= 1/g(s). In the  
Herrnstein experiment, the pigeon is probably controlling a logical  
variable (( girlfriend AND peck) OR (no girlfried AND no peck)), keeping it  
"true" and the observed relationship between s and o is probably not much  
different than the actual one.

But the important point is this: Regardless of whether the relationship  
between o and s is o = f(s) or o = 1/g(s), the organism has to be able to  
discriminate s (or the variable affected by s, if s itself is not visible, as  
in compensatory tracking tasks). In the case of Herrnstein's girlfriend, it  
is clear that the pigeon can discriminate different values of s (girlfriend  
from no girlfriend); the bird has to be able to do that even if it is  
controlling a logical variable. All Bruce Abbott has been arguing is that  
the Herrnstein experiment shows that pigeons can make that discrimination,  
and I conceded, last night, that that is the case (Rick Marken  
(951129.1845)). So I (reluctantly;-)) agree that conventional research can  
tell you some things; it just can't tell you what perceptions are being  
controlled -- which some of us think is important to know and others of us  
apparently don't.

Bestest

Rick