some ?'s about PCT

3/26/2006 11:07 PM

I have been following the csg postings for some time. I’ve several questions and would appreciate your comments. I will be discussing PCT on my web site which will be a discussion forum looking at theories of behavior, among other things, from the point of view of languaging.

I have read many publications on PCT. In reading Bill Powers B:CP I get the overall impression that he is talking mostly about what most of us would refer to as sensible, productive, normal behavior. The title of the book however does not indicate that he speaks of only ONE kind of behavior. Is he or is he not saying that ALL behavior is the control of perception? from the PCT point of view is the behavior of the neurotic, the sociopath, the catatonic schizophrenic the control of perception.

What does PCT say about what most people refer to when they say spontaneous behavior? Does it exist in PCT?

Does PCT exclude from behavior, experiencings such as any sensorial input which has not been planned for? An unexpected telephone ringing, the trill of a bird, the smell of spaghetti cooking, would impinge on my senses without my controlling for them to do so. At that initial level, is it behavior? If not, what is it?

What does PCT say about dreaming? They would appear to me to fit within the context of behavior yet I find it difficult to think of them as perceptions which can be controlled for. Again I ask is PCT about all and any behavior or only certain kinds?

Somewhere in Bill Powers literature he says that “this is not about attitudes”. Why not? Aren’t attitudes behavior? Why try to exclude or limit the use of any concept or word or combination of words that people use in their behavior from a concept which speaks of behavior? It sounds like B:CP is encouraging a certain kind of behavior rather than speaking of all behavior. How about some clarification.

In B:CP Bill Powers says “behavior is the process by which organisms control their input sensory data”. I see this clearly as being the case in controlling a cursor on a monitor but is it the case as I drive along the highway with dozens upon dozens of assorted and sundry thoughts entering my mind? Do you consider these input sensory data? These appear to me to be uncontrolled for inputs, therefore, according to PCT they are not behavior. I would consider them a kind of unsolicited behavior because they are thoughts and feelings taking place in my brain. I sometimes find myself responding to them but in most cases they are unsought for. What are they according to PCT?

JIM D.

···

FROM: JIM DUNDON

[Martin Taylor 2006.03.27.15.44]

FROM: JIM DUNDON
3/26/2006 11:07 PM

I have been following the csg postings for some time. I've several questions and would appreciate your comments. I will be discussing PCT on my web site which will be a discussion forum looking at theories of behavior, among other things, from the point of view of languaging.

Language communication was my entry into PCT. I had/have a theory called the "Layered Protocol Theory" of dialogue, which I discovered to be a specialized version of PCT. So PCT is definitely relevant.

Is he [Bill P] or is he not saying that ALL behavior is the control of perception? from the PCT point of view is the behavior of the neurotic, the sociopath, the catatonic schizophrenic the control of perception.

All behaviour, yes. The questions that the non-normal behaviours raise are about what kinds of effects within PCT would result in those kinds of aberration. They aren't much talked about because few people on this list know the ailments and PCT both at the depth necessary to make sensible statements that could lead to careful analysis.

You ask whether the behaviours of the neurotic, the sociopath, the catatonic schizophrenic [are] the control of perception. Well, yes, if you realize that control doesn't alway work as well as it might. That control can fail is always implicit in the theory, and in quite a few situations it becomes explicit.

What does PCT say about what most people refer to when they say spontaneous behavior? Does it exist in PCT?

Spontaneous in what sense? A twitch, or an unexpected decision to change one's lifestyle? Remember we are dealing in nonlinear systems, with considerable structural complexity. That makes it hard to produce explicit predictions in situations where the nonlinear system dynamic is near a bifurcation. A bifurcation would often be realized (as observed from the outside) as soemthing quite out of the blue (spontaneous?). System noise comes in, too, but away from a bifurcation, it shouldn't result in qualitatively different behaviour.

  Does PCT exclude from behavior, experiencings such as any sensorial input which has not been planned for? An unexpected telephone ringing, the trill of a bird, the smell of spaghetti cooking, would impinge on my senses without my controlling for them to do so.

Those are called "disturbances" if they affect controlled perceptions. Otherwise they are just perceptions not currently being controlled.

  At that initial level, is it behavior? If not, what is it?

System input.

What does PCT say about dreaming?

Nothing explicit, and I don't remember any discussion of it. Dreaming does, however, seem closely allied to imagination, and there's been a lot of discussion about that, even in a thread that is ongoing at the moment. Usually when one is dreaming, one's musculature is paralyzed, which means that if there is any control occurring, it must be through imagination.

  They would appear to me to fit within the context of behavior yet I find it difficult to think of them as perceptions which can be controlled for. Again I ask is PCT about all and any behavior or only certain kinds?

"Behaviour" is usually taken to be system output -- the effects on the outer world, which may be observable by an external perceiver. You are treating system input as part of behaviour. Certainly we do control our sensors, such as by turning our eyes, or moving so that we can hear better. But those movements are the behaviour. What we then see or hear is not -- at least not as conceived within PCT.

Somewhere in Bill Powers literature he says that "this is not about attitudes". Why not? Aren't attitudes behavior?

I don't know what Bill was referring to when he used the word "this".

Personally, I don't think attitudes are behaviour in themselves. "Attitudes affect behaviour" is the way I would put it, and from the viewpoint of an outside observer, attitudes can be inferred from behaviour. In my understanding of PCT, attitudes may reflect different reference levels for some high-level perceptions, or they may reflect alterations in the gain level of some high-level control systems (i.e. how much one cares to correct the effects of dispturbances). There are probably other ways that what we might call "attitudes" can influence behaviour.

Why try to exclude or limit the use of any concept or word or combination of words that people use in their behavior from a concept which speaks of behavior?

I can't speak for anyone else's use of language, or for the interpretations people make of my language. All I can say here is that I'd be surprised if Bill had intended to exclude some kind of behaviour.

However, what Bill often does do is something with which I wholeheartedly concur: he disparages the use of words that only restate an observation. I silly example might be: "one goes to sleep because of the increase of the dormitive essence". He coined the term "dormitive principle" for such words. He's interested in what happens, not in whether rewording can make something seem clever.

In B:CP Bill Powers says "behavior is the process by which organisms control their input sensory data". I see this clearly as being the case in controlling a cursor on a monitor but is it the case as I drive along the highway with dozens upon dozens of assorted and sundry thoughts entering my mind?

Yes. And with dozens of other cars and traffic lights influencing where you choose to direct your car (and influencing those "random" thoughts).

Do you consider these input sensory data? These appear to me to be uncontrolled for inputs, therefore, according to PCT they are not behavior.

The values of the inputs that matter are being controlled. Many of what you call "uncontrolled inputs and therefore not behaviour" may well enter into the controlled inputs. The controlled imputs (at one level) ar things such as adequate distance from the car ahead, perceiving the right landscape as one continues along the chosen route and not some other, and stuff like that. At another level the controlled input may be to perceive oneself as being a good breadwinner, and to perceive your family to be happy. The inputs you mention, and a myriad of others, may well contribute to the control of those perceptions.

I would consider them a kind of unsolicited behavior because they are thoughts and feelings taking place in my brain. I sometimes find myself responding to them but in most cases they are unsought for. What are they according to PCT?

Imagination and/or memory.

Hope this goes a little way towards helping.

Martin

[From Bjorn
Simonsen (2006.03.27,23:30 EUST)]

DUNDON

3/26/2006
11:07 PM

Is he or
is he not saying that ALL behavior is the control of perception?

from the
PCT point of view is the behavior of the neurotic, the sociopath,

the
catatonic schizophrenic the control of perception.

All behavior

What
does PCT say about what most people refer to when they say

spontaneous behavior? Does it exist in PCT?

Yes, if you
follow the loop backwards again and again, you are able to explain spontaneous
behavior. (Bill: Making sense of behavior page 13)

Does PCT
exclude from behavior, experiencings such as any sensorial

input which has not been planned for? An unexpected telephone
ringing,

the trill of a bird, the smell of spaghetti cooking, would impinge on
my

senses without my controlling for them to do so. At that initial
level, is

it behavior? If not, what is it?

An
unexpected telephone ringing is a disturbance forming a perception. Copies of
the perceptual signal are led to higher levels. Some place it meet a reference
signal and you get an error. Maybe the error results in actions. Some places the
perceptual signal meet a reference having about the same value. The error is
zero (near zero, Martin). No actions.

What
does PCT say about dreaming? They would appear to me to fit

within the context of behavior yet I find it difficult to think of them as

perceptions which can be controlled for. Again I ask is PCT about all

and any behavior or only certain kinds?

Yes, in
B:CP. Bill Powers have some thoughts about dreaming. I think his thoughts
around feasibility testing and reorganization is interesting.

bjorn

···

FROM: JIM

[From Rick Marken (2006.03.27.1400)]

FROM: JIM DUNDON
3/26/2006 11:07 PM

I have been following the csg postings for some time. I've several
questions and would appreciate your comments. I will be discussing
PCT on my web site which will be a discussion forum looking at
theories of behavior, among other things, from the point of view of
languaging.

I have read many publications on PCT. In reading Bill Powers B:CP I
get the overall impression that he is talking mostly about what most
of us would refer to as sensible, productive, normal behavior.

I think B:CP is mainly about what could be called normal behavior, though one person's "normal" may be another person's "odd". I think the book is mainly about skillful controlling, except, perhaps, for the chapter on conflict. Conflict interferes with controlling, making for poor control -- which is not particularly normal.

The title of the book however does not indicate that he speaks of
only ONE kind of behavior. Is he or is he not saying that ALL
behavior is the control of perception?

I think it's fair to say that all behaviors -- except those that happen to be unintentional side effects of control -- involve the control of perception. The problem is that the term "behavior" is pretty vague. Most of what we see and describe as "behavior" -- driving a car, catching a ball, making breakfast, taking a shower, etc -- involves the control of perception(s). But some events that we call "behavior" -- like bumping the car in front of us or falling on the way to catch the ball -- are not control of perception; rather, they are either unintended side effects of control of perception or failures of control of perception.

from the PCT point of view is the behavior of the neurotic, the
sociopath, the catatonic schizophrenic the control of perception.

Yes, I think these would often involve control of perception though some surely involve failures of control due to internal conflicts. They would also involve control of imagined perceptions, I imagine.

What does PCT say about what most people refer to when they say
spontaneous behavior? Does it exist in PCT?

I think what you might mean by "spontaneous behavior" is behavior that is not an obvious reaction to some external circumstance. Spontaneously coming up with an inspired (and unsolicited) anecdote when giving a lecture, for example, might be an example. PCT would explain this kind of behavior as being a result of acting to achieve a higher level goal (the goal of giving an interesting lecture) by varying lower level references (for what is said in the lecture). It's ultimately the setting of the higher level goal that leads to the behavior. A difference between the perception of the state of the lecture, for example, and the goal of giving an interesting lecture leads to setting a lower level reference for perceiving the telling of an interesting anecdote. The anecdote seems (to an observer) to be produced "spontaneously" because there was no external event that caused it. What caused the behavior was inside the lecturer, not outside in the lecture room. So it looks spont!
aneous.
  

  Does PCT exclude from behavior, experiencings such as any sensorial
input which has not been planned for? An unexpected telephone
ringing, the trill of a bird, the smell of spaghetti cooking, would
impinge on my senses without my controlling for them to do so. At
that initial level, is it behavior? If not, what is it?

Those are uncontrolled perceptions. We are perceiving many things all the time that we are not controlling. Some of these perceptions (like the telephone ringing) may actually be controlled perceptions under some circumstances (a ringing phone is a controlled perception if you have the goal of answering the phone when it rings).

What does PCT say about dreaming?

Dreaming is controlling perceptions in imagination. There has been some speculation that dreaming is a way for testing the feasability of one's current hierarchy of perception and control. I think Bill Powers talks about this in B:CP, possibly in the "Memory" chapter.

They would appear to me to fit
within the context of behavior yet I find it difficult to think of
them as perceptions which can be controlled for.

They are controlled _imagined_ perceptions. I think Bill discusses this in the "Memory" chapter of B:CP.

Again I ask is PCT about all and any behavior or only certain kinds?

I would say all behavior, real and imagined.

Somewhere in Bill Powers literature he says that "this is not about
attitudes". Why not? Aren't attitudes behavior?

I think Bill meant that PCT is not about the specific attitudes people have. PCT is more about explaining what an attitude _is_ (it's a reference signal).

Why try to exclude
or limit the use of any concept or word or combination of words that
people use in their behavior from a concept which speaks of behavior?

We're happy to have people use any concept or word they like to use. What we're interested in is understanding what these words mean. And ultimately we think that that understanding comes from looking at behavior in terms of a working model of the processes that produce behavior.

It sounds like B:CP is encouraging a certain kind of behavior rather
than speaking of all behavior. How about some clarification.

The only thing B:CP encourages is seeing behavior as control.

In B:CP Bill Powers says "behavior is the process by which organisms
control their input sensory data". I see this clearly as being the
case in controlling a cursor on a monitor but is it the case as I
drive along the highway with dozens upon dozens of assorted and sundry
thoughts entering my mind?

Don't you have thoughts in your mind when you control a cursor? The tracking tasks just let you see control in the simplest terms. It's like a ball rolling down a plane. That is a simple example of a mass accelerating in response to an applied force (gravity). But masses accelerate even in much more complex situations (like in machines) where dozens upon dozens of masses are being accelerated simultaneously. Similarly, the simple controlling that you see when a person controls the position of a cursor in a tracking task is exactly the same as the controlling you do when you control the position and speed of your car, etc.

Do you consider these input sensory data?

No. Those side thoughts are imaginings.

These appear to me to be uncontrolled for inputs, therefore,
according to PCT they are not behavior. I would consider them a kind
of unsolicited behavior because they are thoughts and feelings taking
place in my brain. I sometimes find myself responding to them but in
most cases they are unsought for. What are they according to PCT?

I'd call them controlled imaginings. We control many variables simultaneously, many of which are imaginings. But if control of our imaginings take up some of the resources we are using to control our actual perceptions, things can go wrong, as when we bump the car ahead of us when we are lost in thought (imaginings).

JIM D. \

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken, PhD
Psychology
Loyola Marymount University
Office: 310 338-1768
Cell: 310 729 - 1400