[Martin Taylor 2018.02.21.15.07]
Philip,
If you intend to send more than one or two messages per year, it
would be very helpful if you started with a header that uniquely
identifies the message so that it can be referenced later. Most of
us use our name and a date and time in universal format
(year-month-day-24-hr clock time-minute), but a unique serial
identifier would be equally useful except for people who sequence
their archives according to the identifier time stamp.
Now, purpose.
When scientists developed S-R psychology,they did not suppose that behavior did not have purpose. The
premise of S-R psychology is that the purpose of behavior is not
arbitrary. If this premise is false, then the theory is not
valid. Do you disagree with the proposition that this same
premise applies to PCT?
Evolution has no purpose, or at least that's a basic assumption.
Everything we see now, both living species and inanimate
structures are those that have survived from their inception until
now, and that’s all the purpose there is. In the case of living
organisms, the individuals we see are those that had ancestors way
back to the beginning of life billions of years ago, all of whom
survived long enough to produce descendants that were structured
similarly to themselves. Today we identify the instructions for
building those descendant structures as patterns of genes. The
genes don’t have purposes, but the organisms produced according to
their instructions may, perhaps must. Their purpose must be to
have a sufficiently high probability of surviving to produce
descendants, which means to reduce the likelihood of encountering
lethal influences from their environment.
Surviving to reproduce involves luck, to the extent that the
influences from the environment are independent of the actions of
the organism. But the more that the actions of the organism can
reduce the harmful effects and enhance the beneficial effects of
influences from the environment, the less the survival to
reproduce depends on pure luck. But this requires that the
organisms act to oppose influences that impinge randomly on it,
and separately that they act to influence the local environment
into states that are better suited to a long and effective life.
The latter is easily interpreted as “purpose”, and all of it is
“control”. At base, being reactive the former has a flavour of
S-R, while being proactive the latter has a flavour of cognitive
psychology. Both have equal status in PCT.
Whether altering the environment so that it better suits the
functioning of the organism is called “purposeful” is not really a
matter of interpretation. Something inside the organism acts in
order to produce a specified effect on its environment. In the
English language, acting in order to achieve an effect is acting
with purpose, the purpose being the achievement of the effect. The
purpose is also the reference value(s) for the perception(s) of
the particular state(s) deliberately influenced by the action, but
that’s a PCT definition. However, I think that the ability to
determine an environmental state without the perceiving noticeably
influencing the state, and to act on that state to bring it to a
desired condition and keep it there is what is defined as
“control”.
Given all the above, the purpose of life is entirely arbitrary
(it can only be to reproduce), whereas the fact of control and the
purpose of any particular controlling process is not. It can be
anything at all that on the balance of probabilities will tend to
support the purpose of life, at least at the level of genetic
structure.
Does that make me agree or disagree with the proposition you
raise? I think it means that your question is ill posed.
Martin
···
On 2018/02/20 11:28 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN wrote:
Whenscientists developed S-R psychology, they did not suppose that
behavior did not have purpose. The premise of S-R psychology is
that the purpose of behavior is not arbitrary. If this premise is
false, then the theory is not valid. Do you disagree with the
proposition that this same premise applies to PCT?On Tuesday, February 20, 2018, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com> wrote:[Rick Marken 2018-02-20_17:50:31]
[eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi
21.2.2018]
Â
EP:(I feel this reply still misses something but this
role of reference i.e. goal of action is anyway
the core point of my understanding of PCT.)
RM: You are missing nothing. The goal of action,which is the (possibly varying) reference state of the
controlled variable, is what S-R (or cognitive or
equilibrium ot any cause-effect theory of behavior)
cannot explain.
Â
EP: Rick, for yourdisappointment I must tell that I searched the
word complemet from dictionary and had no idea
that is so dangerously near to compliment
RM: Nope, not disappointed. Still very impressed!
BestÂ
Rick
Â
Eetu
From:
PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:00:00
PM**To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu **Subject:** Re: General
Â
Yes Eetu, your response isfair. I will repost my next message for
convenience. Iunderstand that PCT explains how S-R
psychology works. But these two theories
involve what is essentially the same
constitutive equation: response is
proportional to stimulus. In order to
constitute a different theory, this
constitutive equation would need to be
different. Would you disagree?Â
On Tue, Feb 20,2018 at 9:52 AM, Richard Marken
rsmarken@gmail.com
wrote:[RickMarken 2018-02-20_09:52:49]
EetuPikkarainen
(2018-02-20_08:45:11
UTC)
Â
EP: Sorry,I am not a psychologist
so I hope that someone
will correct and
complement my short
answer.
RM: I see nothing to correctand only things to compliment in
this post. I compliment your
excellent description of what
PCT explains that S-R psychology
doesn’t. And I also compliment
your excellent command of
English as revealed in your
understanding of the distinction
between complementing and
complimenting.Â
Best
Rick
Â
S-Rpsychology makes
predictions about
subject’s reactions
based on the current
stimulus and
previous knowledge.
Usually the success
of these predictions
are quite low.
PCTexplains why the
correlation between
stimulus and
response must be
slow: there is
always an important
intervening
variable, namely the
reference value,
which determines how
the stimulus will
affect the response.
So PCT research does
not even try to
predict reactions
from stimuluses.
Instead it tries to
find out what
perception the
subject is
controlling (the
Test for controlled
variable). If it can
be found then it is
possible to predict
with high accuracy
how the subject
responds by her
output (“reaction�)
to the disturbances
(“stimulus�) against
the perceived value
of the controlled
variable.
Perhapsthe example in
Powers: Behavior:
The Control of
Perception (2005)
about the analysis
of a typical rat
experiment in PCT
terms could be
lightening about the
difference, pages
238-243.
AnÂextensive
description about
PCT type of research
in relation to more
typical
psychological
research is in
Runkel, P. (1990).
Casting Nets and
Testing Specimens:
Two Grand Methods of
Psychology.
Â
Eetu
Â
From:
PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN [mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu ]
Sent: Tuesday,
February 20, 2018 3:43
AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re:
General
Â
Thatis a very
strange
example. Â
Ihave read some
PCT
literature.
One remark is
that PCT
doesn’t employ
the same model
as
stimulus-response
psychology.Â
How do the
predictions of
a
stimulus-response
theory of
behavior
differ from
PCT
predictions?Â
Â
Â
OnMon, Feb 19,
2018 at 11:01
AM, Bruce
Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[BruceNevin
2018-02-19_14:00:13
ET]
Â
PHILIPJERAIR
YERANOSIANÂ
(Sun, Feb 18,
2018 at 3:28
PM) –
Â
Philip,we do
model-based
control
without
calculating
inverse
kinematics.
When you walk
through a
familiar room
in the dark or
with your eyes
closed, the
model is made
of perceptions
restored from
memory and
controlled in
imagination.
Controlling in
imagination to
avoid the
chair that is
there  and
the table that
is over
there  accompanies
ordinary
perceptual
control
processes by
which you walk
over to the
light switch
by the door
there  and
turn it on. In
the final
stages of
controlling a
perception of
having light
in the room by
means of
flipping that
switch no
amount of
prediction is
going to
guarantee that
your fingers
find the
switch
reliably every
time, but
repeated
practice will
sharpen the
precision of
your memory,
not to mention
your
confidence in
your
imagination.Â
Â
Iwill leave it
to others to
refer you to
the abundant
literature
laying out
predictions
that PCT makes
that are
different from
those of other
theories. And
I have no
choice but to
leave it up to
you to read
that
literature.
Â
/Bruce
Â
OnSun, Feb 18,
2018 at 3:28
PM, PHILIP
JERAIR
YERANOSIAN
pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
Thepurpose of my
question is to
figure out why
PCT is to be
developed as a
scientific
discipline in
its own
right.Â
Whatpredictions
does PCT make
that are
different from
those of other
theories? Â
 Â
Â
Virus-free.
Â
OnSun, Jan 28,
2018 at 9:56
AM, Richard
Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com >
wrote:
[RickMarken
2018-01-28_09:55:50]
Â
OnSat, Jan 27,
2018 at 9:36
PM, PHILIP
JERAIR
YERANOSIAN
pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
Â
PY:If a system
uses inverse
kinematics to
calculate the
effects of its
output, is it
not ultimately
doing so in
order for its
actions to
produce a
desired effect
on its input?
Does it really
matter if a
system is
using a
simulated
model of the
environment to
predict its
input before
calculating
its output? Â
Allcontrol
systems have
reference
values for
their inputs.
There is no
system that
only controls
its output. Â
Allcontrol
systems are
doing
“perceptual�
control. Who
does not agree
with this
proposition?Â
RM: RM:I think you
are asking
whether
everyone
agrees that
all control
systems
(properly
designed
closed- loop
negative
feedback
systems) even
those that
include
model-based
calculations
of inverse
kinematics,
are doing
perceptual
control. I
can’t speak
for everyone
but I
certainly
agree with
that. And I
think it’s a
very good
observation.Â
Â
RM:This fact
about how
control
systems work
is not
particularly
important for
engineers who
build such
systems to
understand
since the
engineers know
which
variables they
want their
control
systems to
control and
they develop
perceptual
systems
(sensors) that
provide
analogs of
these
variables for
the system to
control. But
it is very
important for
students of
the
controlling
done by living
systems to
understand
since figuring
out what
perceptions
these systems
are
controlling is
essential to
understanding
their
behavior.Â
Â
Best
Â
Rick
Â
--
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfectionis achieved
not when you
have nothing
more to add,
but when youhave nothingleft to take
away.â€?      Â      Â
  --Antoine
de
Saint-Exupery
Â
Â
Â
–
Richard
S. MarkenÂ
"Perfectionis achieved
not when you
have nothing
more to add,
but when you
have
nothing left
to take away.�
Â
      Â
      Â
 --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfectionis achieved not when you have
nothing more to add, but when
you
have
nothing left to take away.�
Â
              Â
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery