I like it.
MartinRM: I donât like it at all. âPurpose Control Theoryâ makes no sense, mainly because control IS purposeful behavior. If youâre trying to eliminate âcontrolâ from the name of the theory, I think the best way to do it is to rename the theory âPerceptual Purpose Theoryâ (PPT). This would not only be a correct description of the theory (the objects of our purposes are states of perceptual variables) but it would have the added advantage of no longer confusing the theory with the Pacific Coast Trail;-)
FWIW, I prefer Performance Control Theory.
On reflection, I withdraw my approval for Purpose Control Theory on
the grounds that the purpose is the reference, which is not subject
to control. Nor do I like Fredâs suggestion of Performance Control
Theory, this on the grounds that it sounds as though it is based on
observable behaviour in the environment, and hence is talking about
control of output rather than of input. If the name and acronym must
be changed, in my experience, the word that causes problems is
âcontrolâ. Perhaps something suggesting that what matters is
perceptual stabilization or maintenance in a changing world might be
substituted for âcontrolâ. I donât have a suggestion at the moment
other than âconditioningâ, which I donât much like.
MartinâPerceptual Control Theoryâ still sounds good to me. Rather than changing the name it seems that publishing a great deal more research based on PCT is the way to go in order to spread PCTâgood additional research, if possible, that will capture the minds of scholars such as those previous correlations of predicted and observed behavior in the order of 0.96 to 0.98 or a bit less.
How about flipping it around: the Control of Perception Theory?
Although Martinâs initial post here was directed to the question âhow to influence neuroscientists to find out about PCT and adopt itâ, the pivotal reference to Gilbert Ryle directed it the sequel of responses immediately to philosophy, so this topic has been placed in the Fundamentals/Philosophy subcategory.