other stuff

[Bruce_Abbott]

[From Bruce Abbott (970922.1030 EST)]

Bill Powers (970921.1751 MDT) --

If you define behavior in terms of visible actions, you aren't looking at
what is being controlled. Because of that, you may see the action change
(due to disturbances of the controlled perception) and think you're seeing
a different behavior, when in fact the new action is maintaining the same
perception at the same reference level. The actor knows that, but the
observer does not. So the actor claims he is doing "the same thing" while
the observer claims that the actor is doing something different. The
observer is wrong.

Doesn't this depend on what they mean by "doing"?

If "doing" means what the actor is trying to accomplish, then the actor is
right and the observer is wrong: the actor is still "doing" the same thing.
If "doing" means what movements are being performed, then the actor is wrong
and the observer is right: the actor is "doing" something different. For
the observer, what the actor is "doing" (in the sense of trying to
accomplish) is an hypothesis to be tested, not an observation.

We can't really say who is right until we know what each means by the term
"doing." Perhaps they are both right.

Regards,

Bruce

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (970922.1316 MDT)]

Bruce Abbott (970922.1030 EST)--

So the actor claims he is doing "the same thing" while
the observer claims that the actor is doing something different. The
observer is wrong.

Doesn't this depend on what they mean by "doing"?

Of course, and that is the point. What the observer means by "doing" is
what he can see the parts of the body doing in relation to the environment.
What the actor means is what those activities accomplish that that actor is
perceiving.

In the undisturbed setting common in the laboratory, the two kinds of doing
are functionally related, because the same action always produces the same
consequence. In the natural world, however, when the same consequence is
repeated, it repeats, normally, only because the action _changed_ in just
the right way. The observer who focusses on action will see apparently
random changes in behavior, but the observer who focusses on controlled
variables will see that the variations are causing the same consequence to
repeat. When this is observed, it means of course that there must be
disturbances acting on the consequence, and that the variations are
opposing their effects. The observer must understand the actions as part of
a control process, however, in order to see that the behavior is not
changing randomly.

If we say that behavior is some regularity in the activities of organisms,
then the observer in this case will say that there is no behavior, because
there are no regularities (you would have to know what the disturbance is
doing to see the regularities). But the observer is wrong about that, if in
fact the consequence is under control by the organism. It's in that sense
that I say the observer is wrong.

If "doing" means what the actor is trying to accomplish, then the actor is
right and the observer is wrong: the actor is still "doing" the same thing.
If "doing" means what movements are being performed, then the actor is wrong
and the observer is right: the actor is "doing" something different. For
the observer, what the actor is "doing" (in the sense of trying to
accomplish) is an hypothesis to be tested, not an observation.

Yes, but it is not an hypothesis for the actor.

We can't really say who is right until we know what each means by the term
"doing." Perhaps they are both right.

No, they are not both right. There is no compromise between saying that the
sun moves around the earth and that the earth spins on its axis. In terms
of the grand scheme of science, one view is right and the other is wrong.
The same is true about what organisms are "doing." The observed
regularities are perceptual, not motor. Only when natural disturbances are
artificially prevented is it possible to think that the two views are
simply alternative ways, equally acceptable, of describing the same
phenomenon. One could say that the idea of the sun circling the earth is
just as valid as the idea of the earth's spinning on its axis -- until you
include the whole physical picture of the world. Then it becomes clear that
the sun _can't_ be circling the earth, at its distance of 93,000,000 miles,
every 24 hours. No known force could possibly keep it in that orbit. And
for even the nearest star to do the same thing, it would have to be
travelling at many times the speed of light. The impression that the sky
moves around a stationary earth is an illusion, clear and simple. In the
same way, the impression that the behavior of organisms consists of
regularities of action is an illusion, and we can prove that it is an
illusion by methods quite similar to the way we can prove that a stick
doesn't really bend when you poke its end under water.

Best,

Bill P.

[R_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (970922.1430)]

Bruce Abbott (970922.1030 EST)--

Perhaps they are both right.

Bill Powers (970922.1316 MDT) --

No, they are not both right.

Gee, I get all kinds of flack when I say that. Excuse me while I
duck into this foxhole and see how you do;-)

Fred Nickols (970921.1751 ET) to Bill Powers (970921.1751 MDT)--

To test my understanding, Bill, it seems to me you're saying that
the question of what someone is (or isn't) "doing" is answerable
in terms of the perception being controlled, not in terms of their
activity.

You pass the test. A+

So, it further seems to me that, when conversing with PCTers, I
must keep in mind that, to them, "behavior" refers to the
maintenance of a controlled perception, not to any of the actions
used to maintain it, no matter how varied these actions might be.

Yes. Though we PCTers know that the term "behavior" is used to
refer to many aspects of what organisms do. That's why we don't
try to get people to understand what the word "behavior" _really_
means; it means many things. Rather, we try to get people to
understand that the aspect of what organisms do that we PCTers
care about is what you are talking about above -- the fact that
organisms control their own perceptions.

For example, if my aim is to maintain the appearance of a neat
and tidy office, then whether I happen to be "running the vacuum,"
"emptying the trash," or "filing papers," these terms (in the
PCT scheme of things) do not refer to my "behavior" as that term
is used in PCT land. Those terms refer instead to my outwardly
visible, often discrete, and generally recognizable "actions."

This is an excellent example! But, again, we PCTers know that the
term "behavior" has been (and still is) used to refer to actions
as well as controlled (and uncontrolled) consequences of those
actions (one uncontrolled consequence of vacuuming, for example,
is the "behavior" called "disturbing the peace";-)). We are not
trying to make a new rule about what the word "behavior" should
mean. Rather, we are trying to make it clear that the aspect of
behavior that is important (to us, anyway) is its purposefulness;
the fact that certain (perceived) consequences of an organism's
action are under control.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[HANS_BLOM2]

[Hans Blom, 970923]

(Bill Powers (970922.1316 MDT))

The observed regularities are perceptual, not motor.

Yet, when you observe closely, you perceive that people move in
(their own peculiar) regular ways. My auditive perception of someone
walking in the corridor outside my office may identify that person to
me before he has entered. It is, indeed, this regularity that allows
my prediction to be pretty accurate (although I can be fooled, of
course). People have their own special ways of walking, standing,
dressing, eating, driving, kissing or whatever. It appears simply
untrue to me that regularities are only perceptual: there are many
motor regularities in every person. Or is that just my imagination?

Or do I have to understand what you say as the simple tautology that,
because the regularities are _observed_, they are _perceptual_? What
am I missing?

... the idea of the sun circling the earth ...

is nowadays standardly replaced by "the earth circling the sun". But
we know that this is not correct either. More accurately, they both
circle a common center of gravity. That this center of gravity has a
position somewhere _within_ the sun is coincidental: it depends on
the relative masses of sun and earth. In case of a small sun and a
large planet neither would circle the other.

This is not new, of course. It does point, however, to something
which appears to be universal: we like simple models. And even the
model where sun and the earth circle a common center of gravity whose
position is determined only by the masses of both sun and earth is a
simplification: masses at other places in the solar system (and
anywhere in the universe!) also contribute to the position of the
"point" that earth and sun rotate around. Finally, even the center of
gravity notion itself has been abolished, since Einstein, by a more
accurate model -- so incomprehensible to most that, in our common
parlance, we'd better stick to the simple, old-fashioned notions.

But you must have missed something: since Einstein it's perfectly
respectable again to say that the sun circles around the earth.
Einstein focused our attention on the fact that it's the (position of
the) observer that determines what the observation is. Reminds one of
PCT...

Greetings,

Hans

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory 970923.1010 EDT)]

Hans Blom, 970923

But you must have missed something: since Einstein it's perfectly
respectable again to say that the sun circles around the earth.
Einstein focused our attention on the fact that it's the (position of
the) observer that determines what the observation is. Reminds one of
PCT...

You have a view of Einstein that I do not share. Besides I doubt
we needed his genius to determine that it is the position of
the observer that determines what the observation is. Einstein
was interested in what happens independent of the observations
(invariance) -- what is true in _all_ reference frames. Knowing
this, we can describe what _any_ observer will observe.

Sancho Panza

[Hugh_G_Petrie]

[From Hugh Petrie (970923.13:10

Fred Nickols (970921.1751 ET) to Bill Powers (970921.1751 MDT)--

To test my understanding, Bill, it seems to me you're saying that
the question of what someone is (or isn't) "doing" is answerable
in terms of the perception being controlled, not in terms of their
activity.

[From Rick Marken (970922.1430)]

You pass the test. A+

Fred Nickols (970921.1751 ET)

So, it further seems to me that, when conversing with PCTers, I
must keep in mind that, to them, "behavior" refers to the
maintenance of a controlled perception, not to any of the actions
used to maintain it, no matter how varied these actions might be.

[From Rick Marken (970922.1430)]

Yes. Though we PCTers know that the term "behavior" is used to
refer to many aspects of what organisms do. That's why we don't
try to get people to understand what the word "behavior" _really_
means; it means many things. Rather, we try to get people to
understand that the aspect of what organisms do that we PCTers
care about is what you are talking about above -- the fact that
organisms control their own perceptions.

For example, if my aim is to maintain the appearance of a neat
and tidy office, then whether I happen to be "running the vacuum,"
"emptying the trash," or "filing papers," these terms (in the
PCT scheme of things) do not refer to my "behavior" as that term
is used in PCT land. Those terms refer instead to my outwardly
visible, often discrete, and generally recognizable "actions."

It might be useful to point out that most such complex actions occur within
a hierarchy of control systems. Thus keeping a neat office may well be the
highest (higher?) order controlled variable, but "filing papers" may well
be under control as well. We can test, using the test for the controlled
variable. We may disturb the filing papers variable in such an extreme
manner as to overwhelm that as a method of keeping a neat office and the
result will be a varied action that tries to keep a neat office. E.g., I
don't have time to file, but I ask my secretary to do it. In most
instances, however, "filing papers will also be a controlled variable,
receiving its reference signal from the "keeping a neat office" system.

···

===========+++++++++++===========***********===========+++++++++++===========

Hugh G. Petrie 716-645-6614
422 Baldy Hall FAX: 716-645-2481
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260-1000
USA HGPETRIE@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (970924.0300 MDT)]

Hans Blom, 970923--

The observed regularities are perceptual, not motor.

Yet, when you observe closely, you perceive that people move in
(their own peculiar) regular ways. My auditive perception of someone
walking in the corridor outside my office may identify that person to
me before he has entered. It is, indeed, this regularity that allows
my prediction to be pretty accurate (although I can be fooled, of
course). People have their own special ways of walking, standing,
dressing, eating, driving, kissing or whatever. It appears simply
untrue to me that regularities are only perceptual: there are many
motor regularities in every person. Or is that just my imagination?

I think I'm going to confine my replies to comments like these simply by
referring to the area of PCT that contains the relevant materials.

In this case the word is "hierarchy."

Or do I have to understand what you say as the simple tautology that,
because the regularities are _observed_, they are _perceptual_?

No, because they are _produced_ they are perceptual.

What am I missing?

Competence in PCT.

... the idea of the sun circling the earth ...

is nowadays standardly replaced by "the earth circling the sun". But
we know that this is not correct either. More accurately, they both
circle a common center of gravity.

Even more accurately, they are wave functions occupying a moving locus of
maximum probability of observation. Sheesh!

But you must have missed something: since Einstein it's perfectly
respectable again to say that the sun circles around the earth.
Einstein focused our attention on the fact that it's the (position of
the) observer that determines what the observation is. Reminds one of
PCT...

In fact the universe is not invariant with respect to rotation in the same
way it is invariant with respect to translation. A state of zero rotation
can be established by measuring centrifugal force in all directions, a
purely local measurement. As far as I know, neither special nor general
relativity says otherwise.

Best,

Bill P.

[HANS_BLOM2]

[Hans Blom, 970924]

(Bruce Gregory 970923.1010 EDT))

You have a view of Einstein that I do not share.

What, especially?

Besides I doubt we needed his genius to determine that it is the
position of the observer that determines what the observation is.

In a superficial sense, we knew this all along, of course. Einstein
took it "up a level", as we say in PCT land, with quite unexpected
results.

Einstein was interested in what happens independent of the
observations (invariance) -- what is true in _all_ reference frames.

That's what I hinted at, in my normal clumsy way ;-). Einstein
reintroduced the observer ("observations", "reference frame") into
physics. _That_ was his genius...

Einstein was -- if I may reinterpret your sentence above --
interested in what observers could _agree_ on, despite the fact that
their perceptions (of positions, velocities, acclerations, times,
etc.) were very different and that they could not even agree on
apparently "simple" concepts like before/after and near/far. This is,
I believe, the core business of science: establishing what we all can
agree on.

Knowing this, we can describe what _any_ observer will observe.

That's too easy. Einstein's theory is not about perception; it does
not describe what an individual observer perceives. It describes what
_rational people_ (physicists?) would ultimately agree on, perhaps
after having studied, observed and thought for a long time. Who of us
is willing to do that? Most of us control on the basis of faith: we
believe that the physicists are right and take their word for it,
without further checking. Einstein's theory is pretty far removed
from the daily perceptions of almost everyone.

Greetings,

Hans

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (970924.1020 EDT)]

Hans Blom, 970924

>Einstein was interested in what happens independent of the
>observations (invariance) -- what is true in _all_ reference frames.

That's what I hinted at, in my normal clumsy way ;-). Einstein
reintroduced the observer ("observations", "reference frame") into
physics. _That_ was his genius...

Einstein was -- if I may reinterpret your sentence above --
interested in what observers could _agree_ on, despite the fact that
their perceptions (of positions, velocities, acclerations, times,
etc.) were very different and that they could not even agree on
apparently "simple" concepts like before/after and near/far. This is,
I believe, the core business of science: establishing what we all can
agree on.

This is a legitimate way to describe Einstein's accomplishment.

>Knowing this, we can describe what _any_ observer will observe.

That's too easy. Einstein's theory is not about perception; it does
not describe what an individual observer perceives. It describes what
_rational people_ (physicists?) would ultimately agree on, perhaps
after having studied, observed and thought for a long time. Who of us
is willing to do that? Most of us control on the basis of faith: we
believe that the physicists are right and take their word for it,
without further checking. Einstein's theory is pretty far removed
from the daily perceptions of almost everyone.

As you know, the word observer has a technical meaning in this
context. I don't think it involves agreement. If you tell
describe a physical situation, I will tell you what "observers"
traveling at different relative velocities will "see". No
agreement, ultimate or otherwise is involved. The situation is
made more complicated by the fact that physical objects are
distorted in appearance by the finite travel time of light --
they seem to twist or bend rather than simply to shorten. None
of this however involves consensus.

Sancho

[HANS_BLOM2]

[Hans Blom, 970925]

(Bruce Gregory (970924.1020 EDT))

Einstein was -- if I may reinterpret your sentence above --
interested in what observers could _agree_ on, despite the fact
that their perceptions (of positions, velocities, acclerations,
times, etc.) were very different and that they could not even agree
on apparently "simple" concepts like before/after and near/far.
This is, I believe, the core business of science: establishing what
we all can agree on.

This is a legitimate way to describe Einstein's accomplishment.

Then tell me how must I interpret your subsequent:

None of this however involves consensus.

What's the difference between consensus and agreement?

Greetings,

Hans Blom

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (970925.1755 EDT)]

Hans Blom, 970925

What's the difference between consensus and agreement?

Science as a social enterprise is about consensus. Relativity as
a scientific theory is not.

Sancho

[HANS_BLOM2]

[Hans Blom, 970929]

(Bruce Gregory (970925.1755 EDT))

What's the difference between consensus and agreement?

Science as a social enterprise is about consensus. Relativity as a
scientific theory is not.

I agree. You must have been thinking laterally ;-): I was not talking
about _social_ consensus but how relativity is based on _scientific_
consensus: how can several observers who perceive quite different
things yet arrive at a theory that all can accept. Was it Einstein's
genius to be able to be several observers at once?

Yet -- to come back to social consensus -- I sometimes wonder whether
social consensus might not be very much like scientific consensus
applied less rigorously...

Greetings,

Hans

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (970929.1100 EDT)]

Hans Blom, 970929

I was not talking
about _social_ consensus but how relativity is based on _scientific_
consensus: how can several observers who perceive quite different
things yet arrive at a theory that all can accept. Was it Einstein's
genius to be able to be several observers at once?

Einstein described how in his youth he imagined himself
traveling at the speed of light along side a light wave. He
realized that he "ought" to see the electric and magnetic
components as stationary, but that this is never observed.
Instead, Maxwell's equation tell us that all observers measure
the same speed for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. He
concluded that this invariant speed of light, when coupled with
axiom that the laws of nature appear to to be the same for all
observers in uniform motion (if they were not the same,
Maxwell's equations would take different forms for different
observers) that _requires_ that spacetime be separated into
space and time differently by different observers. One could
well argue that Einstein's genius was his ability to see beyond
the apparent conditions in the reports of different observers
to an invariance that is more fundamental that any observer's
report.

Bruce

[HANS_BLOM2]

[Hans Blom, 970930b]

(Bruce Gregory (970929.1100 EDT))

One could well argue that Einstein's genius was his ability to see
beyond the apparent conditions in the reports of different observers
to an invariance that is more fundamental that any observer's
report.

Great. You phrase it well. That is what I attempted to say.

Wish we had more of that on CSGnet. We even have a name for it: going
up a level. Wish we could develop it as a habit...

Greetings,

Hans