Contrary to your post of a day or so ago, PCT is not a theory of “behavior.” It’s a theory that includes explanations of behavior, but it is also intended to explain how the world, including our own actions and their consequences, appears to us. Its very name, perceptual control theory, refers to something that is known only to each of us as a subjective phenomenon (even if we sometimes mistakenly think it is objective). In fact, one of the earliest findings from this theory is that “behavior” is never the point of our control actions; the point is to make perceptions be in the states we want. Behavior is what other people observe; perception is what we observe of our own control operations.
This is not a criticism of PCT, but an attempt to clarify the domain in which PCT applies. B:CP spells out this domain: behavior.
But this is an attempt to limit, not clarify, the domain, both unnecessarily and incorrectly. The domain of PCT is human experience. That includes both actions and the effects of actions; it includes both external and internal effects. It includes hierarchies of effects, in which one effect is produced by whatever action is necessary at the moment as a means of producing more general effects. It includes effects that are controlled and effects that are not controlled, as well as effects we experience that are caused and controlled by other organisms, or by non-sentient natural processes. You will find all these elements in even the simplest control tasks such as tracking. To understand PCT you have to understand HPCT. It is a mistake to draw conclusions about the whole system from characteristics of one of its elementary components. You have to consider what phenomena can emerge from an complex assembly of many such components – phenomena such as emotion.
BP: Contrary to your post of a day or so ago, PCT is not a theory of “behavior.” It’s a theory that includes explanations of behavior, but it is also intended to explain how the world, including our own actions and their consequences, appears to us.
RM: Right. PCT explains behavior as well as how and why we experience the world as we do, including such things as our experience of emotions, thoughts, dreams, etc. --subjective phenomena that we don’t usually refer to as behavior.
RM: I think Bill was responding to someone who was saying that PCT is like behaviorism inasmuch as it only deals with over behavior – the behavior we can see organisms doing. It’s clear from the entire quote that when Bill said PCT is not a theory of “behavior” he meant that PCT is not a theory of only behavior.
Best
Rick
Its very name, perceptual control theory, refers to something that is known only to each of us as a subjective phenomenon (even if we sometimes mistakenly think it is objective). In fact, one of the earliest findings from this theory is that “behavior” is never the point of our control actions; the point is to make perceptions be in the states we want. Behavior is what other people observe; perception is what we observe of our own control operations.
This is not a criticism of PCT, but an attempt to clarify the domain in which PCT applies. B:CP spells out this domain: behavior.
But this is an attempt to limit, not clarify, the domain, both unnecessarily and incorrectly. The domain of PCT is human experience. That includes both actions and the effects of actions; it includes both external and internal effects. It includes hierarchies of effects, in which one effect is produced by whatever action is necessary at the moment as a means of producing more general effects. It includes effects that are controlled and effects that are not controlled, as well as effects we experience that are caused and controlled by other organisms, or by non-sentient natural processes. You will find all these elements in even the simplest control tasks such as tracking. To understand PCT you have to understand HPCT. It is a mistake to draw conclusions about the whole system from characteristics of one of its elementary components. You have to consider what phenomena can emerge from an complex assembly of many such components – phenomena such as emotion.
Best, Bill P.
M
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:34 AM, MK <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:
[From MK (2014.11.30.1530 CET)]
-------------------------------------------
[From Bill Powers (2004.12.19.0730 MST)]
[...]
Contrary to your post of a day or so ago, PCT is not a theory of "behavior." It's a theory that includes explanations of behavior, but it is also intended to explain how the world, including our own actions and their consequences, appears to us. Its very name, perceptual control theory, refers to something that is known only to each of us as a subjective phenomenon (even if we sometimes mistakenly think it is objective). In fact, one of the earliest findings from this theory is that "behavior" is never the point of our control actions; the point is to make perceptions be in the states we want. Behavior is what other people observe; perception is what we observe of our own control operations.
> This is not a criticism of PCT, but an attempt to clarify the domain in which PCT applies. B:CP spells out this domain: behavior.
But this is an attempt to limit, not clarify, the domain, both unnecessarily and incorrectly. The domain of PCT is human experience. That includes both actions and the effects of actions; it includes both external and internal effects. It includes hierarchies of effects, in which one effect is produced by whatever action is necessary at the moment as a means of producing more general effects. It includes effects that are controlled and effects that are not controlled, as well as effects we experience that are caused and controlled by other organisms, or by non-sentient natural processes. You will find all these elements in even the simplest control tasks such as tracking. To understand PCT you have to understand HPCT. It is a mistake to draw conclusions about the whole system from characteristics of one of its elementary components. You have to consider what phenomena can emerge from an complex assembly of many such components -- phenomena such as emotion.
Best, Bill P.
---------------------------------------------
BP: It’s a theory that includes explanations of behavior
RM: Without the scare quotes around “behavior”.
RM: It’s also a theory that explains, besides behavior, things like emotion, like the anger you probably feel when reading my posts and the joy you probably felt when you saw the subject line of this thread.
RM: I, of course, feel these emotions as well, so I know they are a phenomenon to be explained. The main emotion I feel these days, however, is dismay when I check my email in the morning and don’t find replies to my posts that say “Wow, now I understand. Thanks Rick”
RM: Ah well, back to my paying job.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
