[From Bruce Buchanan 950220.20:30 EST)]
(Would CSG Netters please forgive my erroneous double posting of an already
long commentary on Responsibilities on Feb 18 &19. When follow-ups began
to appear on bit.sci.purposive-behavior before the original was posted, I
thought that I had made an error in the original posting. So I placed
another copy directly into the newsgroup. My lessons for today: (1)
newsgroup postings are distributed to the CSGNet, and (2) I should not try
to correct an error until I know whether I have made one and what it is! I
am sure this is covered somehow by PCT ;-).)
[Bill Powers (950219.1017)] writes:
Point of interest from various posts: you keep saying "controlling
variable." Could you explain the relationship between what you call a
controlling variable and what we call a controlled variable?
This usage probably reflects uncertainty on my part, and a reluctance to
fully accept all the implications of "controlled variable". I had not
articulated this to myself, but my thoughts are as follows.
My understanding from B:CP has been that a controlled variable is the
measure or goal, a perception that behavior is organized to maintain, by
correcting for differences between perception and that quantity. So I
understand that the variable is a perception to be controlled by behavior.
At the same time I see this as a measure determined within a complex
hierarchical structure and hence a function of higher reference variables
also, not always a fixed quantity over time. As a function it is only a
part of a control system and so is also controlled by higher level
functions. By "controlling" I mean to imply that such functions work both
ways, and also control the behavior which controls the (controlled)
perceptions. (But I know that we have been through this before, and I have
been a slow learner.)
From the point of view of PCT and clear definitions it may be quite
appropriate to consider that I am drifting off the reservation. On the
other hand I am trying to verbalize the relationships as they appear to me.
And I still see controlled variables within PCT as theoretical constructs -
a kind of "intervening variable" posited to account for observations -
defined in a way that makes them amenable to observation and measurement.
However they must also be highly complex functions, and inevitably subject
to all kinds of emotional and chemical influences, etc., as well as
functions of higher intentional sets or values. So I am perhaps reluctant
to accept terminology which might suggest a single-valued view so to speak,
operating only at the lower level, although I accept that level as the
primary reality and the level for most experimentation.
Well, you asked the question. I don't think either of us will me much
surprised if you do not much like the answer!
It is sometimes difficult to know whether a philosopher
is arguing from a more comprehensive perspective, or just a vaguer one.
Agreed. I guess my point is that there is territory (perhaps more
existential than conceptual) "out there" which does encompass everything
that we think and do, and that this framework matters in relation to some
kinds of problems - especially those involving methods and the nature of
existence. I would not claim that this enquiry has ever been done
adequately, and it may never be, since there is something of an unending
quest about it.
I go even
farther than Polanyi, since I say that higher-level systems (in human
organization) are physically distinct from lower-level ones, not merely
broader ways of talking about the same collection of elements.
Agreed. I think that modern findings in neurophysiology support this view
also, as well as the massive interconnections which link all these levels.
To say
anything interesting about emergent phenomena, you have to understand
what they are emerging FROM.
I am not sure that I agree with this. I would have thought that the most
interesting aspect of an emergent phenomenon is what makes it unique, not
just the components involved. From the moment of birth we are all
confronted with phenomena which we had best try to grasp at their own
level(s). For a gardener, the focus is on what helps plants to grow, etc.
We may learn that e.g. Chemistry emerges from the interactions of atoms,
but our interest may well remain at the levels of chemical interations. So
it may be for most people - as it appears to be for the law, by and large -
in relation to society.
In the physical sciences, it makes a great deal of
difference whether we are talking about a matter of happenstance history
or fundamental principles that would remain true regardless of history.
Agreed, It makes all the difference between a fundamental principle and any
specific application or exemplar. In the practice of medicine, with which I
am more familiar, the history and specifics may be key as to whether the
fundamental principles get to continue to make any difference at all.
I'm asking what makes rules
POSSIBLE. That's what I mean by asking "What is a rule, that we can
follow it?" I don't mean what particular rule, I mean any rule at all.
I didn't understand this as your purpose. And I guess I see this as either
a philosophic question, or, which may be much the same thing, as a question
about the more abstract aspects of human nature. While one might see a rule
simply as measure against which perceptions are controlled, the higher
level question of why THIS rule can always be asked, until the sources are
identified in the environmental contingencies and their regularities -
including social relationships, as I see it, anyway.
Particular rules are made up by people in answer to
practical problems.
Right. And the class of rules which help people to stay alive may have some
theoretical as well as practical interest at its own level of emergence.
... I described what I consider to be a
scientific approach in a post a few days ago; if you've lost it I'll
send you a copy. I don't really distinguish among science, hard science,
and trying honestly to understand how things work. It's all one thing to
me: trying to understand.
I understand and accept this. I do read and keep all your posts, Bill! 
I have not lost it!
The "imperialist" label is rather out in left field;
I stand corrected for this bit of dramatic hyperbole.
... specific secondary or emergent attributes which
could... fit the conditions and enable mutual
survival ... are more often than not quite
rigorous.
They may seem rigorous if you don't look at the details.
We are perhaps talking at cross purposes here. Life processes consist of
concrete details, and it is only by thinking in more abstract terms that we
can approach more general principles. I would doubt that you disagree with
this.
Yet I would argue that there is a case to be made, not incomptible
with PCT although not part of its theory, for considering that
ultimate meanings for human beings are related not only to physical
survival but to the individual's perception of membership, of
acceptance within a group and in the universe somehow.Well, this leaves me with no understanding at all of what you mean by
the word "meanings." Please explain.
This is too complex and problematic to deal with adequately here,
particularly when I am well aware of the somewhat rhetorical nature of the
request and your familiarity with the subject matter in any case. My
considerations include the notion that living systems are organized in
terms of their overall intentionality. Briefly . . .
I am pointing in the direction again of a larger encompassing framework of
relationships with others and of existence in the world which is, for us,
unknowable in its complexities but nevertheless a universal human
preoccupation, one of the principle determinants of any form of human
civilization. In all cultures at all times men have first been concerned
with the necessities of physical survival. Their next concern has been with
What does it all Mean and How can I be saved from error and rejection.
These are the invariable universal themes of myth and literature. The same
questions have led many to pursue careers in science, which they consider
somehow more meaningful (as I would also understand the term) than idleness
or crime. These questions have had many contradictory answers, but the
concerns and questions themselves are, I think, obviously manifestations of
human nature.
How this relates to PCT may be important, and this is partly why I pursue this.
As I understand the hierarchy of perceptual control, criteria at any level
can only be set at a higher level. The question How? is answered by
describing operations at that level, the question Why? goes up one or more
levels. For humans the higher levels bring the individual into extensive
relationships, shifting and evanescent as these may be, with a world
including other humans (this is also how the brain is organized), and
meanings are sought in this area. In other words, it seems to me, there are
also controlled perceptions at this level which are in fact not difficult
to observe, although this is not commonly considered part of science. Nor
are these matters simply vague abstractions.
In these relationships it is the searching and the quest, the process of
reevaluating, that makes possible freedom and creativity, but only, I
think, in specific terms and situations, of the type dealt with by the
great dramatists. Yet it may also be that some of the univeral principles
in these processes can be described as by PCT in more rigorous terms.
I would welcome any comments or suggestions for pursuing my education in
these matters, however, for I am not unaware of some of the complications
;-).
What gives me and perhaps others a lot of concern is the type of thinking
involved in the current Scientific American (March/95), where under the
heading 'Can science "cure" crime', presumed authorities in behavioral
science are said to be optimistic that "science will identify markers of
maleficence" that "might revolutionize our criminal justice system" by
applying the "medical model" based upon prevention, diagnosis and
treatment" of the (presumed) causal factors. This type of thinking just
give me the chills. Although I have possible differences of view with PCT
around the margin, as I think, I have no difference of opinion about the
harmfulness of the cause-effect model which provides self-appointed
caretakers with a rationale for manipulation and exploitation of others.
Anyway, that's how I see it, and that's undoubtedly enough!
Cheers and best wishes.
Bruce B.