[From Rick Marken (950531.2130)]
Regarding the Kittmann study referred to by Bruce Abbott (950530.1140 EST)
I said:
I would say that such a study is a PCT study as long as one had already
identified the significant components of the control loop
Bruce asked:
Bill Powers, do you agree?
and Bill (950531.1540 MDT) said:
Mostly. Even to talk about such things as the "gain" of a control
system in a preying mantis, one must have identified a control system
at least in overall terms. It isn't necessary to break down the system
into particular components, but in the study in question, at least the
output function was identified and tested.
I should add that I don't know whether or not the Kittman study is a
"PCT study". If Kittman et al didn't identify the variable controlled by the
control system, for example, (an essential part of _identifying_ the
control system) then their measures of gain may be meaningless. All I
meant to say is that the study of the gain of a control loop is certainly
a legitimate topic for PCT research.
Bill Powers (950531.1540 MDT) --
Incidentally, is the name (in the other references) "Naftigall" as Rick
gives it, or "Nachtigall" [Nightingale]? I suspect it's "Nachtigall"
because when I did a search for a book by an author spelled that way, I
got a reference to a book about insect behavior.
It's Nachtigall. I probably started calling him Naftigall because I was
unconsciously confusing him with Nosferatu, the German Dracula. I've been
demonizing this poor guy just because his description of flies landing on
ceilings is not a PCT description. This is particularly unjust because
Nachtigall turns out to be a fine scientist. I just got "Insects in
Flight" this afternoon and it is absolutely delightful. I can see why
Bruce got upset at my judgment of the quote from the book. There is lots
of really great stuff in this book, it is clearly written, beautifully
illustrated and one of the translators is a fellow named Roger Abbott
(any relation Bruce?).
I haven't read "every word" but it is easy to see that Nachtigall is a
careful observer and an excellent researcher. It looks like he has done some
very clever analyses of the anatomy, structure and aerodynamics of insects.
I have not been able to find any examples of PCT description or research --
but who cares? Nachtigall did his research in the 1960s, well before
anyone but Bill Powers knew that behavior is the control of perception.
Nachtigall did correctly describe a control system -- but control
engineering had been around for 30 years already. It would have been
remarkable if Nachtigall (like Avery's bee person) have stumbled onto
the notion of systematically testing for results protected from disturbance.
Even though Nachtigall knew how control systems worked and could imagine the
antennae as part of a velocity control system, his perspective on behavior
was clearly a product of the behavioral zeitgeist that prevails to this
day. Nachtigall can't be faulted for this because he could not possibly
have profited from the study of PCT at the time he did his observations
of behavior; BCP had just been published when "Insects in Flight" was
published. Current psychologists, howver, CAN be faulted for their failure
to understand that behavior is the control of perception because they've
already had 20 years to study PCT.
I'll keep looking for evidence of "PCT-like description" in Nachtigall's
book. But I don't think the value of Nachtigall's work to PCT depends on
whether or not he made PCT-like observations. Anyone who wants to study
the controlling done by insects in flight would be well advised to read
Nachtigall to find out something about what insects can perceive and what
they can do to influence those perceptions.
···
----------
Mark Abrams -- I WILL review "Action Science" soon. I have not
forgotten; I have just run into an unexpected insect problem.
Best
Rick