# Purpose, cherpas...folk(purpose) =/= PCT(purpose)

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/purpose-cherpas-folk-purpose-pct-purpose/9299>\
**Category:** CSG1996\
**Created:** [October 1, 1996, 8:36pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/purpose-cherpas-folk-purpose-pct-purpose/9299 "1996-10-01T20:36:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CCHERPAS](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@CCHERPAS](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/CCHERPAS)\
**Post date:** [October 1, 1996, 8:36pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/purpose-cherpas-folk-purpose-pct-purpose/9299/1 "1996-10-01T20:36:12Z")

</div>

[From: cc\> Chris Cherpas (961001.1035 PT)]  
&nbsp;&nbsp;[re: BP\> Bill Powers (961001.0600 MDT)]

> About the only thing you can say about scientists who bravely stand up for  
> the notion of purposive behavior is that they have come to their senses  
> instead of bowing to the pressure of scientific opinion. That does not make  
> them pioneers; it just says that they finally have a chance to get back to  
> the real work, which is to understand how purposive behavior works.

> I agree that purpose has been around as a folk concept a long time --  
> probably pre-dating recorded history. But let's not assume (pretend?)  
> that "purpose" as a folk concept has not carried connotations which have  
> slowed our scientific understanding, or that this "purpose" just needed  
> to be properly explicated \_in toto\_ by control theory to simply extend  
> its already useful status in the lexicon. Purpose has been associated  
> with the concept of the Prime Mover, God, and humanity's usual tendency  
> to control for an infantile narcissism well into adulthood. I hope  
> PCT will eventually do more to eliminate some of that nonsense, not  
> support it with mathematical/scientific respectability (try "creation  
> science" if that's of interest).

> Scientist/philosophers, like J.R. Kantor, wanted to remove Purpose (Big  
> P) from our view of behavior; Skinner's "operant" was an attempt to  
> keep what was important, while shedding the unsightly fat; certainly,  
> Watson's S-R psychology was an overreaction (so to speak!); and none  
> would ever see the critical aspect of purpose (small p) -- i.e., in  
> terms of a formal theory of perceptual control. But PCTers need not  
> play a language game in which "jes' folks talkin' 'bout organisms  
> being purposeful" is just an unrefined version of control theory,  
> perhaps even fantasizing that the common man intuitively sensed  
> all along the nature of negative feedback, which was perversely  
> censored and hidden by insane behaviorists just in the last century.  
> I think we'd agree that such a reconstruction is Rubbish (Big R).  
> There are a lot more stupid ideas around than smart ones, and  
> PCT has done quite a lot better from what I can see than just take  
> an old-folks version of "purpose" and wrapped a formal theory around it.

> Ask any \_real\_ proponent of "purpose" -- like those people who  
> think evolution is the work of satan (remember, an overwhelming  
> majority of Americans are theists) -- what \*they\* think of your  
> (PCT's) interpretation of the concept! They'll say you've  
> co-opted a cherished human value and turned it into a thermostat!

=========={Warning: Optional, mean-spirited rave...}================

> OK, I don't really speak for those people, so I don't know,  
> but, please, give me a break from this purposeless pap already!  
> I don't care if you felt "brave" or not when you decided not  
> to carry on the S-R tradition; you weren't controlling for  
> feeling brave were you? I think not. I suppose one possibility  
> is that the discovery of perceptual control was motivated by a desire  
> to retain the concept of purpose in all its narcissistic glory, but  
> you happened to have been in the right circumstances and stumbled  
> (blind variations, right?) onto a theory that really fits.

==============={Attention: Not as spirited rave...}================

> To repeat: do you really think \_PCT's version\_ of "purpose" is what  
> the folks in Akron Ohio (home of Ernest Angley, friend of Jesus)  
> want to have in their faces? Note: the folk concept of  
> "purpose" is more closely related to perceptual control than  
> "the operant" -- but folk(purpose) =/= PCT(purpose). If you insist that  
> it is, you risk even more sloppy, inaccurate "applications of  
> control theory" than you'd ever want to know about.

> The Main Point: "Perceptual Control" is just a better concept than  
> mere "purpose" (quibbler's note: perceptual control gives  
> meaning to the PCT concept of reference so let's not quibble about  
> whether purpose equates to control or to reference --\> Rick Marken,  
> that was for you, stalwart protector of PCT ontology).

> Any comments (with or without smiley faces) are greatly appreciated.

Respectfully, but insanely,  
cc