On Animism

[Marken_Richard_S1]

[From Rick Marken (941102.1600)]

Bruce Abbott (941102.1630) --

for EAB types the term "control" simply refers to a repeatable relationship
between independent and dependent variables, not to some kind of
consciousness that is "attempting" to accomplish some goal.

Perhaps. But the animism of the EAB types is revealed by more than their use
of the term "control". When EAB types talk about the environment "selecting"
or "maintaining" some behavior they are clearly treating that behavior as
though it were a controlled variable. Perhaps the best evidence that EAB
types believe that the environment controls (in the PCT sense, which is also
the dictionary sense) behavior is that they make no distinction between the
controlling done by people and the controlling done by the environment.
Skinner, for example, saw no difference between his own controlling and the
controlling that he imagined was done by contingencies of reinforcement.
Indeed, this was the basis of his great crusade on behalf of behavior
control; the environment is controlling behavior anyway so why not arrange
the enviroment so that it controls it the right way (ie. brings it to the
right reference states)? If left alone, the environment might end up
producing a person who steals; but the environment can be arranged properly
so that it produces a person who works hard for a living instead. EAB people
imagine that the environment does what people do: both control.

I hear from some of these folks that sunspots are controlling weather
patterns here on Earth--eeee, guess those ol' sunspots are havin' a bit of
fun with us, huh? Are those guys STUPID or what?

Not necessarily stupid (though being a physicist does not prevent stupidity)
but they clearly don't know what control is.

Rick, find an engineer familiar with aerodynamics and ask him or her
whether, along with other factors, the angle of an airfoil with respect to
the direction of airflow controls the amount of lift generated.

OK. It's very possible that they will say "yes" at first. But I bet that they
could be easily convinced that it's better to use the word "influence"
instead of "control" if we talked about it for a second. Could you convince
EAB folks to stop saying that the environment controls behavior, once you
explained to them what control means? I think it would be a big step in the
right direction if EAB people would stop saying that consequences select or
control behavior and, instead, say that they only influence behavior.

And speaking of animism, what is this "selection OF consequences" I keep
hearing about? Who is doing the selecting?

I told you; the setting of the reference signal selects the level of
consequence to be perceived. The reference signal _selects_; the control
loop _achieves_ what is selected. _Who_ is selecting the consequence? We
would typically say that it is the person in whom the reference signal exists.

[No explanations, please, it's a rhetorical question.]

Opps. Sorry.

Sounds suspiciously like animism to me...

It IS animism; animism applied where it belongs -- to animals who are
purposeful, controlling systems. PCT is not anti-animism; it is anti the
misapplication of animism. EAB people are (unintentionally) attributing
purposiveness to entitites that are not organized to carry out purposes --
things like kibbles and M&Ms. PCT shows that animism is a correct
description of the behavior of certain systems -- systems that are in a
closed loop, negative feedback relationship with their environment; ie.
control systems. Animism applies to control systems, most of which are
living organisms. PCT is the theoretical explanation of the behavior of
animistic systems; the behavior of these systems is called "control".

McCoy: "Dammit Jim, now I remember! I've run into something like this
         before! These creatures are psychopaths! You can't make them
         understand ordinary perceptual control theory, no matter how often
         you go over it with them!

Spock: They are not psychopaths, Scotty. They are just control systems,
           like you and me. That's why we can't make then understand control
           theory. They have to want to understand it on their own. ... Darn
           it! (Sorry, Scotty. That outburst was not logical).

Best

Rick

[Abbott_Bruce_Indiana]

[From Bruce Abbott (941102.1630)]

                       ON ANIMISM and TRT

Having recently received comments from Bill Powers, Tom Bourbon, and Rick
Marken revisiting the topic of animism, I've decided to have one more try at
an explanation. So here goes.

Tom Bourbon [941102.1630]:

Ouch! I know you are presenting a summary of TRT, but it hurts to see
"scientists" savage the language that way. TRT writers portray inanimate
objects as agents, imbued with the functional properties of living control
systems. I know that way of writing is part of the TRT tradition, but by
that practice the TRT community looks downright animistic.

Bill Powers (941101.0740 MST)]:

It's very hard for me to get past this -- pardon me -- animistic
language. You have to admit that this sounds as if the reinforcers, the
little bits of kibble or the little drops of water, have some ability to
initiate an effect on behavior (and now to maintain it), all by
themselves. "Alter" and "maintain" are transitive verbs, usually used
after the name of an agent capable of causing something. Help me out
with this.

Rick Marken:

Hmmm. TRT animistic. Where have I heard that nonsense before?

You guys are determined to see animalism here, and I'm downright puzzled by
it--in a way. I know your motivation: you are trying to keep the focus on the
causes of behavior that lie inside the organism rather than "out there" in the
environment. Understanding the organism's internal organization is crucial
for making proper sense out of what relationships appear "out there" beyond
the boundary separating organism from environment. However, belief that the
environment "controls" behavior (in the EAB sense of the term) does not make
one an "animist." These folks no more believe in animism than you do.

I've said it before but it evidently bears repeating that for EAB types the
term "control" simply refers to a repeatable relationship between independent
and dependent variables, not to some kind of consciousness that is
"attempting" to accomplish some goal. It is in this sense that, everything
else being constant, ordinary disturbances and changes in the feedback
function (out there in the observable environment) "control" behavior (again,
out there in the observable environment). It is only when you attempt to see
this as "control" of the PCT type (i.e., the idea that the environment as
agent is attempting to bring some perception to a reference level) that
"animism" emerges.

Given your unique interpretation of such ways of speaking, you might want to
accuse physicists, chemists, geologists, meteorologists, aeronautical
engineers, and just about any other scientist or engineer you care to mention
of being "animists," too. To take an example, I hear from some of these folks
that sunspots are controlling weather patterns here on Earth--eeee, guess
those ol' sunspots are havin' a bit of fun with us, huh? Are those guys
STUPID or what?

This way of speaking about relationships is quite common in science and
engineering, where it rarely if ever results in accusations of animism. By
way of demonstrating this fact, I have a challenge for Rick. (I take it that
he is working for an aerospace company.) Rick, find an engineer familiar with
aerodynamics and ask him or her whether, along with other factors, the angle
of an airfoil with respect to the direction of airflow controls the amount of
lift generated. Use those exact words (and no more). Then give us an honest
report of the reply. I'm willing to bet that the reply will be "yes,"
possibly with some explanation. If so, accuse this person of being an animist
and tell us what reaction you got.

And speaking of animism, what is this "selection OF consequences" I keep
hearing about? Who is doing the selecting? [No explanations, please, it's a
rhetorical question.] Sounds suspiciously like animism to me...

While mulling over the exchanges brought about by my e. coli "reinforcement"
simulations, a strange vision overcame me which I just can't resist sharing
with you. Anyway, It's time to lighten up the discussion.

You are watching this week's episode of Star Trek. We are on the bridge of
the starship Enterprise, along with her first officers. Captain Kirk is
standing on the bridge along side Spock, while Sulu sits at his station,
manning the helm. We get a close-up of O'Hura, who is pressing her fingers
against an earpiece in her right ear.

O'Hura: "Captain, I'm picking up a signal! It sounds like someone's
          trying to contact us from a great distance, but I can't quite make
          out the language!"

Kirk: "On screen!"

An alien creature appears, leaning over a control console and peering straight
into the camera. It speaks.

Alien: "Reinforcement . . .[hiss, crackle] . . . behavior . . .
          strengthened . . . [static, screen flickers momentarily] . . . by
          its consequences! . . . [buzz!] . . . environmental conditions . .
          . established control . . .er . . .ehavior!"

McCoy: "Good lord, Jim, whatever it is it seems to be trying to tell us
          something!"

Kirk: "Spock, what do you make of it?"

Spock: "Judging from what little of its message I was able to piece
          together, it would appear that this creature belongs to a
          primitive form of life such as existed on Earth in the early
          twentieth century. If my calculations are correct, it is a
          species of animist!"

Kirk, swinging into the captain's chair:

          "Well, let's see if we can talk some sense into it! Computer!
          Execute program six-one-five-alpha: the e. coli simulation!
          O'Hura, see if you can lock onto the alien's screen and transfer
          the simulation there!"

O'Hura: "Locking on, captain. Simulation commencing!"

[Camera angle shows view over the alien's shoulder. The alien reaches across
the console and begins to manipulate something off-screen. The simulation on
the screen freezes, then lines of computer code appear. View switches to the
bridge of the Enterprise. Enterprise's main viewscreen flickers, then the e.
coli simulation appears there while computer code scrolls up in a window to
its right.]

Kirk: "Spock, what's happening?"

Spock, raising his eyebrows:

          "Captain, the alien appears to have launched a simulation of his
          own. He has replaced some of our code. It is different, yet
          there is something oddly familiar about it. I believe it
          represents some kind of control system, although it is not the one
          we had originally intended."

McCoy: "Dammit Jim, now I remember! I've run into something like this
          before! These creatures are psychopaths! You can't make them
          understand ordinary perceptual control theory, no matter how often
          you go over it with them! Next thing you know, this fugitive from
          the twentieth century will be trying to convince us that there is
          some relationship between PCT and that old discredited S-R
          psychology, and just when we're beginning to make headway with the
          Romulans!"

Kirk: "Well I guess I have no choice. Shields up! O'Hura, pass out the
          emergency earplugs! If this alien takes over our intercom system,
          the whole crew could be affected! Sulu, bring her around 180
          degrees! .... Warp 9 on my command! .... NOW!"

[As the distance between the Enterprise and the alien's position grows, the
alien's image flickers, breaks up. The e. coli simulation freezes, then
disappears from the screen. There are no signs of pursuit. Spock turns to
Kirk and speaks.]

Spock: "Captain, it would appear that we have evaded the creature. His
          low technology was no match for the Enterprise."

Kirk: "I wouldn't be so sure. I don't think we've seen the last of
          him."

Bruce (:->]

[Tom_BOURBON3]

Tom Bourbon [941104.0812]

[From Bruce Abbott (941102.1630)]

It hasn't been easy finding time to reply to you, Bruce.

                      ON ANIMISM and TRT

Having recently received comments from Bill Powers, Tom Bourbon, and Rick
Marken revisiting the topic of animism, I've decided to have one more try at
an explanation. So here goes.

Tom Bourbon [941102.1630]:

Ouch! I know you are presenting a summary of TRT, but it hurts to see
"scientists" savage the language that way. TRT writers portray inanimate
objects as agents, imbued with the functional properties of living control
systems. I know that way of writing is part of the TRT tradition, but by
that practice the TRT community looks downright animistic. >
Bill Powers (941101.0740 MST)]:

Remarks similar to mine.

Rick Marken:

Alluded to remarks similar to mine.

You guys are determined to see animalism here, and I'm downright puzzled by
it--in a way. I know your motivation: you are trying to keep the focus on
the causes of behavior that lie inside the organism rather than "out there" in
the environment.

Wrong. Our motivations are to identify control whenever and wherever we can,
and to explain it when we find it. The only way we have been able to
explain control is to keep the focus simultaneously on the environment
outside the organism and on the internal configuration of the organism as a
control system. Inside and outside, continuously and simultaneously.
Behavior, or action by the organism, is one part of the control loop.
Behavior is not an end result that is "caused" by any other single place in
the loop, either inside, or outside the organism. (I know you know that,
Bruce, but I also know you are puzzled when we insist upon maintaining our
simultaneous-continuous perspective. I don't have a good idea about why
you are puzzled.)

We are talking about a real phenomenon, control. We identify that which is
controlled (perception, and incidentally parts of the environment) and that
which does the controlling (an organism or its surrogate), and we offer a
working model for how we believe a living thing is organized as a control
system. In contrast, as you portray them in your posts (which agree with
what we have read elsewhere) TRTists talk about how environmental stimuli
"set the occasion for" behavior, or "occasion" it, or "are associated with"
it. So far as I can tell, control and "occasion setting" are not the same.
When we say an organism controls, we mean it controls; when TRTists say the
environment controls, they don't mean it. We would like to reclaim the
word, "control," and save it from further abuse.

Understanding the organism's internal organization is crucial for making
proper sense out of what relationships appear "out there" beyond the boundary
separating organism from environment. However, belief that the environment
"controls" behavior (in the EAB sense of the term) does not make one an
"animist." These folks no more believe in animism than you do.

One can identify controlled variables, their controlled levels, and who or
what is the controller, even if one has no idea at all about the internal
organization of the controller.

I don't think we said TRT and EAB people profess belief in animism. We were
(independently) expressing dismay at their abuse of a good word, and at the
confusion created by that abuse. The _appearance_ of animism is inescapable
when TRTists and EABists write, "X (an inanimate feature of the environment)
controls behavior." X is cast as a subject that performs the action of
control upon the object, behavior.

I've said it before but it evidently bears repeating that for EAB types the
term "control" simply refers to a repeatable relationship between independent
and dependent variables, . . ..

If they don't mean X, Y and Z control behavior, why say that they do? If all
they mean is X, Y and Z bear some repeatable relationship to behavior, why
don't they say that? Were they to say what they mean, they would accomplish at
least
three ends I can identify: they would no longer appear to proclaim the
mistaken idea that behavior is a dependent variable at the end of a cause
and effect chain starting with an independent variable, they would no longer
be mistakenly seen as using the language of animists, and they would escape
at least some of Rick Marken's withering attacks.

Bruce, we are on one of the topics that bothers me the most about TRTists
and EABists. Whenever their lineal causal model is under attack, they
say things like, ""control" simply refers to a repeatable relationship
between independent and dependent variables." I have often seen similar
claims, even from Skinner. But then I read somewhere else and Skinner
(1953, p. 35) says:

"We undertake to predict and control the behavior of the individual
organism. This is our "dependent variable" -- the effect for
which we are to find the cause. Our "independent variables" --
the causes of behavior -- are the external conditions of which
behavior is a function. Relations between the two -- the "cause-
and-effect relationships" in behavior -- are the laws of a
science." Skinner said such things many times, right up to the night before
he died.

Which way is it? Does control mean nothing more than "a repeatable
relationship," or does it mean cause and effect? TRTists and EABists seem
to insist on having it both ways. It 's only my opinion, but that's no way
to do science.

It is only when you attempt to see this as "control" of the PCT type (i.e.,
the idea that the environment as agent is attempting to bring some perception
to a reference level) that "animism" emerges.

TRT and EAB types are good, high-gain control systems. For decades, critics
have railed against the appearance of animism in their claim that an
inanimate environment controls behavior. TRTists and EABists hunkered down
and resisted, rather than use the more accurate and less pretentious phrase,
"behavior bears some repeatable relationship to the environment." What
perceptions might TRTists and EABists be controlling?

Given your unique interpretation of such ways of speaking. . .

Our interpretation is not unique. Many critics have raised similar
objections.

you might want to accuse physicists, chemists, geologists, meteorologists,
aeronautical engineers, and just about any other scientist or engineer you
care to mention of being "animists," too. To take an example, I hear from
some of these folks that sunspots are controlling weather patterns here on
Earth--eeee, guess those ol' sunspots are havin' a bit of fun with us, huh?
Are those guys STUPID or what?

No problem there. Those people don't say their goal is to control the
behavior of other living things, in the sense that TRTists and EABists mean:
to specify the actions they intend to see from their subjects, and to
manipulate the subjects and their environments any way necessary to see the
intended actions.

This way of speaking about relationships is quite common in science and
engineering, where it rarely if ever results in accusations of animism. By
way of demonstrating this fact, I have a challenge for Rick. (I take it that
he is working for an aerospace company.) Rick, find an engineer familiar with
aerodynamics and ask him or her whether, along with other factors, the angle
of an airfoil with respect to the direction of airflow controls the amount of
lift generated. Use those exact words (and no more). Then give us an honest
report of the reply. I'm willing to bet that the reply will be "yes,"
possibly with some explanation. If so, accuse this person of being an animist
and tell us what reaction you got.

And next Rick should ask the engineer who or what controls the journey of
the airplane from takeoff to landing. If the engineer says airflow, lift,
and clear air turbulence do the deed, I'll be the first shout, "animism!"

Rick already said it, but it is right and proper and good to attribute the
properties of living things to living things, and anthropomorphism applies
perfectly to people. What is abusive is to insist that living things do not
have the properties they do, and instead to attribute the properties of life
to inanimate things and speak of living things as though they are inanimate.
TSTists would clear all of this up in a flash, were they to stop saying X
controls behavior and say instead that X has some repeatable relationship to
behavior.

And speaking of animism, what is this "selection OF consequences" I keep
hearing about? Who is doing the selecting? [No explanations, please, it's a
rhetorical question.] Sounds suspiciously like animism to me... >

But we know you know better, so we aren't worried.

That was a clever, if slightly off-target, scene on the bridge of the
Enterprise, but I like Rick's new ending better than the original.

Later,

Tom