[From Bruce Abbott (970905.0845 EST)]
Rick Marken (970904.2200) --
Bruce Abbott (970904.2315 EST)
This is quite disingenuous of you: I already answered that
question about two posts ago, but you imply, contrary to fact,
that I have been evading your question.
You keep changing the subject so I'm afraid I did miss that.
So instead of apologizing to me for your mistake, you blame me for it. How
kind of you.
So it's all over then. Reinforcers are controlled variables;
they are not stengtheners. I think that it would be worth
mentioning (and demonstrating) this fact to your EAB pals.
It is the role they play in the higher-level system that I am focusing on
here (and that has _always_ been the subject). Is the reinforcer a
controlled variable in _that_ system? Inquiring minds want to know.
And now we can stop using the misleading term "reinforcer"
(which implies a variable that controls behavior) to refer
to a variable that is controlled by behavior. And even if this
controlled variable plays a role in some other control system
(as, for example, control of grip configuration perception
plays a role in control of serve event perception) it will
never have the role of a reinforcer because there is no such
thing as a reinforcer in a control loop.
The point of the exercise is and has been to determine the relationship
between certain EAB phenomena, to which labels such as "reinforcement" have
been applied, and control-system operation. We have not completed this
exercise.
You are still confusing the objectively defined thing called a reinforcer
and its supposed properties under reinforcement theory. The thing
behaviorists call a reinforcer _can_ be found in a control loop. Its
defining property is _not_ that it serves as a CV in some other loop. Its
defining property is that its delivery serves to reduce the error between
the CV and its reference in _this_ loop.
Analysis shows that the reinforcer does not have the theoretical properties
behaviorists ascribe to it. I am hopeful that my analysis of the
relationships between certain EAB phenomena and control theory will make for
a convincing argument in favor of the control interpretation when it is
presented to my "EAB pals." You ought to be in favor of this, but for some
reason you wish to fight my project tooth and nail. Go figure.
Regards,
Bruce