PCT as a creation

CSGnet Archive CSG2008
1

{Jim Dundon 01/03/07 1144am}

Fred,

In your post of 2008.01.03.0715 you said:

“I think it is counter-productive to insist on redefining behavior as the control of perception. Explaining behavior (i.e., the activity of the organism) as the control of perception is likely to get much farther.”

If we approach behavior “as control of perception” are we then not defining behavior as control of perception, while in that mode.

Are we not in fact creating a worded world in which behavior is defined “as” control of perception.

Might it be that when and only when we look at behavior as CP is it CP?

In other words is PCT a creation using the creative power of languaging?

Your point goes a long way toward supporting my “worded world” theory.

Bill,

you have so often said that only math is important not words. But where is the meaning of math without words. You never really disconnect the concept of PCT from the words, you are bound by them. Your words are primary to you, by your own admmission and in spite of your denial; it is your worded world that you support with your math.

I see PCT as a creation in which looking at behavior as the control of perception causes it to be and therefore definable as control of perception.

What is gained by looking at behavior this way should be a major and definable concern.

best

Jim.

···
2

Are we not in fact creating a
worded world in which behavior is defined “as” control of
perception.
you have so often said
that only math is important not words.
[From Bill Powers (2008.01.03.1306 MST)]

Jim Dundon 01/03/07 1144am

···

–

If one consciously takes the point of view of the systems that create and
manipulate words, yes. But that’s only the part of the hierarchy from
categories to logic, levels 7, 8, and 9 by my reckoning.

I spent a lot of time, when trying to define levels, looking at words and
asking myself what experience they pointed to. The verbal world is part
of experience, but there are other levels below, and also above and
behind, words.

Bill,

I have? I do think that math is a lot less ambiguous than words are.
“The shooting of the hunters awakened me.” Were the hunters
shooting at game? Or were they being executed?

But where is the meaning of
math without words.

In the quantitative relationships it describes. Math is a language that
uses stricter and more consistent rules than verbal languages
do.

You never really disconnect
the concept of PCT from the words, you are bound by them. Your words are
primary to you, by your own admmission and in spite of your denial; it is
your worded world that you support with your
math.

Well, that’s not much of an argument, since it consists only of saying
something is true. Saying it two or three times doesn’t make it any more
true (of course by your rules, apparently it does, but those aren’t the
rules I play by).

I see PCT as a creation in which
looking at behavior as the control of perception causes it to be and
therefore definable as control of perception.

If that’s all it takes, you can look at anything any way you like, and it
will immediately be that way. If I see a closed door and decide to see it
as open, can I then just walk through it? If someone stops seeing
behavior as the control of perception, is PCT therefore wrong?

Whatever point you have in mind here, I don’t think you’re getting it
across.

What is gained by looking at
behavior this way should be a major and definable
concern.

First, you have to explain what “this way” is. Even if
we can’t directly perceive the external reality, all the evidence appears
to show that there is one, and that it has properties you have to take
into account in order to explain anything. You can’t cause a solar
eclipse by whistling, no matter how strongly you believe you can. You
just can’t. Go ahead and try. You can’t just decide to see something some
way, and then behave successfully as if it is that way – unless it
really is. Or unless you get to define success after you see what
happens.

Best,

Bill P.

3

[From Rick Marken (2008.01.03.1240)]

Jim Dundon (01/03/07 1144am)

Might it be that when and only when we look at behavior as CP is it CP?

In other words is PCT a creation using the creative power of languaging?

Your point goes a long way toward supporting my "worded world" theory.

I think there is a "wording" component to this discussion of behavior
being the control of perception, though it's probably not quite what
you have in mind.

I've found that the meaning of "behavior is the control of perception"
is illuminated when I start naming behaviors. Here are some names of
behaviors I've seen in the last few hours: "typing", "showering",
"going to the store", "singing", "dancing", "eating". Bill Powers has
point out that the fact that we can regularly use these same words to
describe behaviors means that the behaviors must happen fairly
regularly. "Typing", "showering", "going to the store", "singing",
"dancing" and "eating" are things that people do over and over again.
They are, in other words, consistently produced results of human
action. We know (from PCT) that such consistency is unexpected in a
world of continuous and unpredictable disturbance. So it is likely
that these named behaviors -- "typing", "showering", "going to the
store", "singing", "dancing", "eating" -- are controlled results of
human action. And we know (from PCT) that people produce controlled
results by controlling perceptions. "Typing", for example, is produced
by controlling the perceptions of typing: of keys pressed, letters
appearing, etc. So we see that named events that we call behavior --
"typing", "showering", "going to the store", "singing", "dancing",
"eating", etc -- are controlled results of action. Controlled results
are perceived results. So behavior is, quite correctly, described as
the control of perception.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

4

[From Bill Powers (2008.01.03.1339 MST)]

Rick Marken (2008.01.03.1240)

I’m starting to feel like Nasrudin in the story where he was the judge.
He told all the lawyers after their presentations, “You know, I
think you’re right.” When told they couldn’t all be right, he said
“You know, I think you’re right.”

Yes, I agree that what we call behavior is most often a controlled
perception. So, as you say, “behavior” IS “controlled
perception.” But “controlled perception” is not quite the
same as “the control of perception.” The former refers to that
which is controlled, the latter to the process of controlling it. You
have to take advantage of the fuzziness of language to smear out
“control of perception” so you can fixate on the
“perception” part and sort of skid over the “control”
part without looking.

Best.

Bill P.

5

[From Fred Nickols (2008.01.03.1407 MT)]
    

{Jim Dundon 01/03/07 1144am}

Fred,

In your post of 2008.01.03.0715 you said:

"I think it is counter-productive to insist on redefining behavior as the
control of perception. Explaining behavior (i.e., the activity of the organism)
as the control of perception is likely to get much farther."

If we approach behavior "as control of perception" are we then not defining
behavior as control of perception, while in that mode.

I think my point was - and I'm being careful with words here - that we should not approach behavior "as control of perception." That we should go along with the rest of the world and simply accept behavior as "the activity of the organism." We can then proceed to better explain that activity, namely, that it serves to control perception.

So, no, I don't think we are defining behavior as control of perception.

···

--
Fred Nickols
Toolmaker to Knowledge Workers
www.skullworks.com
nickols@att.net

6

[From Fred Nickols (2008.01.03.1632 MT)]

Well, I'll take another crack at this...

[From Rick Marken (2007.01.03.1350)]

Yea, though I don't think Fred will like "behavior is controlled
perception" any better than "behavior is the control of perception". I
still think the latter is better is a better description of behavior
because when we see behavior we see not only controlled results (if we
see them at all -- we often don't see the results that are actually
under control, like the optical variables controlled when catching a
ball) but also the actions that are used to control that result. So
what we are seeing when we look at someone typing is actions producing
controlled results; we see the process of controlling a perception.

I think where my difficulty lies is with the use of IS. As Rick notes
above, I don't like either one of those statements very much. So, let me
come at it from a different angle.

When we observe someone behaving, we typically describe what we see in terms
of action verbs, like those that Rick used earlier (e.g., typing, eating,
etc). Those are commonly used shorthand terms that refer to some widely
recognized and commonly discussed patterned behaviors. Note the use of
"patterned behaviors." However, "typing" can be described in more
fine-grained terms (e.g., depressing this key, depressing that key,
positioning the hands and forearms, etc). Ditto for eating (e.g., lifting
fork to mouth, chewing, etc). We are, then, painfully limited by our
language. All that said, I still think most people - and by far the vast
majority - think of behavior in terms of actions (i.e., activities of the
organism). More important, I see no particular reason to upset that
particular apple cart.

What we can't observe (and most radical behaviorists I know will quickly
agree) is the purpose being served by that activity. Enter here PCT. What
PCT tells us is that the activity we are observing serves some purpose;
namely, that of keeping perceived conditions aligned with some reference
condition. (Here is where the anti-reductionists will jump all over us
because they will accuse us of reducing everything to a matter of gap
reduction. Unfortunately, for them, it is.)

So, as I was trying to say earlier - and have said before - the beauty of
PCT (for me) is that it offers a much more elegant explanation of behavior
and one that is far more personally satisfying. Does PCT redefine the term
"behavior"? Not in my book. For me, behavior is still basically the
activity of the organism. The behaviorists, unable to come up with a
convincing and appealing explanation of behavior, opted instead to eschew
any notion of purpose or goal or intent, and instead chose to say simply
that "the stimulus made me do it." Even grade-schoolers know better.

Enuff already. I'm not trying to persuade anyone here to adopt my point of
view. I think PCT is great and I was simply trying to point out something I
thought gets in the way of its furtherance.

Ciao...

Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net

7

[From Rick Marken (2007.01.03.1350)]

Bill Powers (2008.01.03.1339 MST)--

Yes, I agree that what we call behavior is most often a controlled
perception. So, as you say, "behavior" IS "controlled perception." But
"controlled perception" is not quite the same as "the control of
perception." The former refers to that which is controlled, the latter to
the process of controlling it. You have to take advantage of the fuzziness
of language to smear out "control of perception" so you can fixate on the
"perception" part and sort of skid over the "control" part without looking.

Yea, though I don't think Fred will like "behavior is controlled
perception" any better than "behavior is the control of perception". I
still think the latter is better is a better description of behavior
because when we see behavior we see not only controlled results (if we
see them at all -- we often don't see the results that are actually
under control, like the optical variables controlled when catching a
ball) but also the actions that are used to control that result. So
what we are seeing when we look at someone typing is actions producing
controlled results; we see the process of controlling a perception.

I guess I'm arguing that the title of your book -- Behavior: The
Control of Perception -- couldn't have been better. It certainly
worked on me; it made me stop and think "what the hell is he talking
about" and made me want to figure it out. A more conventional title
like "Purposeful Behavior" or "A New Way of Looking at Behavior" would
not have been nearly as effective nor would it have stated, so
perfectly, the essence of your brilliant discovery. The only possible
improvement I can think of would have been to call it: Behavior: The
Control of Input. That way you might not have attracted the people who
thought that control of perception meant that there is no reality.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

8

When we observe someone
behaving, we typically describe what we see in terms

of action verbs, like those that Rick used earlier (e.g., typing,
eating,

etc). Those are commonly used shorthand terms that refer to some
widely

recognized and commonly discussed patterned behaviors. Note the use
of

“patterned behaviors.” However, “typing” can be
described in more

fine-grained terms (e.g., depressing this key, depressing that key,

positioning the hands and forearms, etc). Ditto for eating (e.g.,
lifting

fork to mouth, chewing, etc). We are, then, painfully limited by
our

language.
[From Bill Powers (2008.01.03.1720 MST)]

Fred Nickols (2008.01.03.1632 MT)]

Even more so than you seem to realize. Not one of those things that you
mentioned is a behavior (forces, movements and positions of the arms,
legs, and other body parts). They are all perceived consequences of
behavior. You don’t have any muscles which can emit depression of a key
or lifting of a fork. All they can do is push, pull, twist, or squeeze.
Those so-called action verbs really describe physical results of actions
by the body, not the actions that produce those results. So for the actor
and the observer alike, they describe perceived results of actions. You
wouldn’t say that the movement of a fork from the table to the mouth is a
child’s behavior if the parent is the one manipulating the fork.

We are so accustomed to controlling perceptions that we don’t even
realize that we’re talking about the controlled perception, not the means
of controlling it (the behavior), which can be very different. You see me
extend an arm straight out to point at something, and think that is my
behavior. But the actual behavior that produces this perceived result is
a set of muscle tensions that support the arm against gravity, the
direction of the force being straight up, not horizontal.

The normal way we talk about behavior is what shows the limitations of
language – but not only language. It shows how poorly people understand
how they themselves act in the world.

Best,

Bill P.

···

All that
said, I still think most people - and by far the vast

majority - think of behavior in terms of actions (i.e., activities of
the

organism). More important, I see no particular reason to upset
that

particular apple cart.

What we can’t observe (and most radical behaviorists I know will
quickly

agree) is the purpose being served by that activity. Enter here
PCT. What

PCT tells us is that the activity we are observing serves some
purpose;

namely, that of keeping perceived conditions aligned with some
reference

condition. (Here is where the anti-reductionists will jump all over
us

because they will accuse us of reducing everything to a matter of
gap

reduction. Unfortunately, for them, it is.)

So, as I was trying to say earlier - and have said before - the beauty
of

PCT (for me) is that it offers a much more elegant explanation of
behavior

and one that is far more personally satisfying. Does PCT redefine
the term

“behavior”? Not in my book. For me, behavior is
still basically the

activity of the organism. The behaviorists, unable to come up with
a

convincing and appealing explanation of behavior, opted instead to
eschew

any notion of purpose or goal or intent, and instead chose to say
simply

that “the stimulus made me do it.” Even grade-schoolers
know better.

Enuff already. I’m not trying to persuade anyone here to adopt my
point of

view. I think PCT is great and I was simply trying to point out
something I

thought gets in the way of its furtherance.

Ciao…

Fred Nickols

nickols@att.net

–

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date:
1/2/2008 11:29 AM

–

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date:
1/2/2008 11:29 AM

9

[From Fred Nickols (2008.01.03.2137 MT)]
    

[From Bill Powers (2008.01.03.1720 MST)]

The normal way we talk about behavior is what shows the limitations
of language -- but not only language. It shows how poorly people
understand how they themselves act in the world.

Point taken...

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net