no problem. You are surely the one on CSGnet who can ask me anything you want. Only the question will be where I’ll answer : on CSGnet or to you privately. You know my relation with Rick.
FN : Question 1: Is it your view that we act or behave so as to control our perceptions of various internal and external phenomena?
HB : I’ve mentioned many times that I had a lot of talkings done here on CSGnet with realy eminent PCT thinkers and I’m proud on that. I’ve mentioned them many times. So I’ve done a long way to understand PCT as it is. Most knowledge I got from Bill. So I agree and support his theory. My view is Bill’s view as much as possible. I perfectly beleive him. There are some cosmetic changes I would add but that don’t disrupt the core Theory. Core Theory is unique, incredible, genious and worth of any effort to inderstand it. If only Rick and Powers ladies would think the same. So my answer is clear :
HB : Control is done in organism for achieving and maintaining of homeostasis in organism (preselected state). It’s done with acting on environment (internal and external) so as to keep INNER PERCEPTUAL SIGNAL MATCHING INNER REFERENCE SIGNAL…. All perceptions of internal and external environment are controlled in the same way although there are different kinds of effectors that act in internal and external environment. Behavior (muscles) are just one of them.
I’m afraid Fred that everything what you want to ask me about PCT is already answered by Bill. I’ll hard invent something new JJ. Bill did geniuos job.
···
From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 12:57 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Marken, 1988: “The Nature of Behavior: Control as Fact and Theory”
Boris: Allow me to ask you a series of questions, one at a time. My aim is not to challenge you but to understand you and I think that is best done one question at a time.
Question 1: Is it your view that we act or behave so as to control our perceptions of various internal and external phenomena?
Fred Nickols
From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 5:08 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Marken, 1988: “The Nature of Behavior: Control as Fact and Theory”
Barb,
There is no language barrier. It’s barrier in the heads of some members on CSGnet. This trick with language problem was already »sold« here on CSGnet and we saw that it’s not the »language barrier« but misunderstanding of the concept of how organisms control. Model can be more or less good aproximation too how organisms control and I always said that PCT is the best model of how organisms cotnrol (function).
Physiology is written in many languages, but there is no language barrier when doctros operate in different countries with different languages. They do the same job on the same concept of organisms organiszation, because human organism has common characteristic in all countries of the world. As Martin is saying it’s just the problem with terms used for perceptions of human body. But terms are in accordance with what people perceive about organisms and what they perceive inside organisms. Their perceptions are so similar that we can talk about the same perceptions. So the perceptions of organisms is what connects their understanding of human organism not terms.
So physiological books in different countries with different languages describe quite the same organization of human organism. The language barrier is not an obstacle. The obstacle is how people understand organism and it’s functioning.
Very similar is situation with understanding PCT. It’s whether you understand how organisms fucntion and how models describe it’s functioning or you don’t. Psychological models miss in some points which were criticized by your Dad. Also PCT model has some problems but less than others. PCT model is supported from biological, physiological, psychological, sociological. Cybernetic… view and most of those views were mastered by Bill. Riick is not reaching even sole of Bills’ foot if we consider the range of knowledge your Dad had.
Until you’ll be closing your eyes to what Rick is doing the mess on CSGnet will continue. I clearly showed in the line of Bills’ definitions what is PCT and is so different from what Rick is showing with his RCT and »Behavior is Control« that we can think of total different concept. PCT is about »Perceptual Control«. Isn’t it obvious what is wrong with Ricks’ RCT.
Although there was some obstacles in definiton of »Controlled qunttity« because of »contrdiction« in Bills’ description of behavior, it’s obvious from all other defintions and physiological evidences that »Behavior is not Control«. That’s also quite clear from your morthers’ Mary critics of Carver/Scheier, Vancouver and so on. Jeff Vancouver admitted that Mary and he were not friends. And I’d bet why they were not. Because Jeff Vamcouver was »deforming« PCT probably in the manner Rick is doing. Psychologist are obviously »Birds of the feather that think together«.
It was no secret that your father »protected« Rick in all possible situations. It was clear in all conversations on CSGnet. And I also said that your Dad changed his mind some times. But definitions in B:CP and in most of his writings and diagram in LCS III are clear enough what we can understand under term PCT and how model of PCT function. Rick don’t understand PCT or he is just pretending that he doesn’t understand (what is for me for me more probable optin) because all of his work would vannish in the air if he would star writing in PCT manner, what he showed that he can. He proved many times that he can write in pure PCT language. Why he is so split perconality when PCT in question you’ll have to ask him.
So it’s not problem in language but in the way people understand how organisms fucntion despite very clear physiological description of it. Workers in medicine deal every day with human organism and I’m sure their perception is worth to consider. They can be considered with no doubt as professionals. But the nature of their work is specialized and so the »picture« of whole human organiszation is neglected. Somebody has to connect all those parts of organism that are so precisley described in medicine books. And that’s I think PCT is doing in the best possible way. It’s general theory of how organisms function what is missing in physiology. I think we should go in this way, as this is what your dad wanted.
I hope we understood each other Barb. There is no language barrier but barrier in how people are thinking about organisms functioning. Different interpretation of perceptions different theories. But in medicine perceptions are so similar every day that we can talk about Rules amd Laws.
If you’ll continue »protecting« Rick the confussion on CSGnet will go on and the consequencial damage to PCT will raise into unpredicatble dimensions.
Best,
Boris
From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 3:47 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Marken, 1988: “The Nature of Behavior: Control as Fact and Theory”
BarbP: 1988… this would mean that my father would likely have reviewed this and given it his approval.
I might suggest a conversation to examine of some of the terms being used here on csgnet, to ensure all are on the same page. I’m still under the impression there is a language barrier.
Respectfully,
*barb
On Nov 5, 2016 3:53 AM, “Boris Hartman” boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Nice piece,
Barb you can see clearly that Rick is promoting BCT (Behavioral Control
Theory) covered by PCT (Perceptual Control Theory) as Trademark. I first
thought that this was written by Carver and Scheier and than surprise Rick
Marken. Well it was not surprise. :).
-----Original Message-----
From: MK [mailto:perceptualposts@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 12:34 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Marken, 1988: “The Nature of Behavior: Control as Fact and Theory”
[From MK (2016.04.11.1215 CET)]
There appears to be at least one person on this list who hasn’t read this
paper.
DOI: 10.1002/bs.3830330304
"What is behavior? The answer seems so simple that the question is rarely
asked. Behavior is what organisms do - things like walking, talking and
playing chess. Scientific psychology is built on the assumption that
behavior is output - the last step in a causal chain that begins in the
environment or the brain. This is an axiom of psychological research; a fact
beyond question. Nevertheless, there is an alternative. Powers (1973) has
argued that behavior is not output but a controlled consequence of output:
behavior is control.
Control is a real, objective phenomenon that involves the production of
consistent results under varying environmental conditions. Control theory
was developed to explain how control occurs (Black, 1934; Buckley, 1968;
Jones, 1973 Maxwell,1868; Weiner, 1948). While behavioral scientists have
applied the methods and mathematics of control theory knowledgeably and with
success, they have concentrated primarily on small behavioral or biochemical
subsystems (McFarland, 1971; Robinson, 1981; Stark, 1968). Powers (1973) has
shown that these same principles of control can be applied to the organism
as a whole, giving a new slant to the entire subject of behavior.
Powers’ approach is based on the realization that behavior itself is control
– not in theory but in fact. This point has been largely ignored and
control theory continues to be viewed as just another model of behavior,
where “behavior” means output. There is a misconception about the role of
control theory in psychology that results from failure to distinguish a
theory of behavior from the fact it is designed to explain."
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/Chapter1.html
M
