Somebody should take this on

tedcloak · September 13, 2015, 4:55pm

A neural network model of causative actions

It might be useful. I don’t have the background or the time to take it on. No mention of Powers, Marken, or Yin.

Ted

wmansell · September 13, 2015, 5:10pm

Done…

···

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Psychological Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

rsmarken · September 15, 2015, 1:23am

[From Rick Marken (2015.09.14.1820)]

···

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

A neural network model of causative actions

TC: It might be useful. I don’t have the background or the time to take it on. No mention of Powers, Marken, or Yin.

Ted

RM: Thanks for this Ted. Their model does bear a superficial similarity to PCT but it misses the mark in one fundamental way: it doesn’t recognize that the behavior they are trying to explain is a process of CONTROL. This article made me realize that it is really impossible to find common ground with behavior theorists even when their theories sound so much like PCT because their theories are trying to explain behavior as an output produced by the organism. For example, the theory in their paper is about how the actions that produce a result like a smashed cup are coded in terms of the perception of the result (the smashed cup) that they produce. Sounds very PCT until you realize they in reality the actions of the behaving system are not the only thing that produces the perceptual result. The result also depends on the state of variables in the world – disturbances-- at the time the actions take place. So the actions that will smash a cup are different depending on whether the cup is made of ceramic or plastic, whether it is dropped on a hard surface or rubber, etc. So the behavior of consistently smashing a cup is a control process inasmuch as actions must be varied appropriately to compensate for disturbances that would otherwise prevent production of that result.

RM: The lesson that I take from this is that if we want to get people to join the PCT revolution we have to convince them, not that they are using the wrong theory (or a theory that is very similar to PCT) but that they are studying the wrong phenomenon. Behavior is not an OUTPUT caused by external events (behaviorism) or mental events (cognitive psychology); behavior IS CONTROL: the process of producing consistent, pre-selected (intended) results in a disturbance prone world.

RM: I think it would really be nice if we could stop pushing the theory of PCT (for a while) and start pushing the the phenomenon that the theory is designed to explain: CONTROL, which is also know as the purposeful behavior of living organisms. I suggest that we go to some psychology journals and describe the controlling that is going on in the experiments described therein; or just describe some examples of controlling that you see happening in your everyday life. Maybe for each example of control (behavior) we could produce a description like that in Table I, p. 172 of LCS I. The first column in the table gives the informal name of the behavior – like “open the door”. The next column give the means (the actions) used to produce the intended result (the reference state of the controlled variable – grasping and pulling on the door in this case). The next column gives the variable controlled (angle of door) and the final column gives the reference state of the controlled variable (80 degrees). I would suggest also including disturbances to the controlled variable that would require appropriate variations in the actions so that the controlled variable is brought to the reference state (tilt of the car on the street, for example, would determine how much pull would have to be exerted to get the door open).

RM: So the phenomenon of CONTROL can be described completely without any reference to theory. Just by inspection we can see, for any particular named behavior, 1) the controlled variable 2) the actions that affect the state of that variable 3) the reference state of the variable and 4) the disturbance variations that also affect the state of the controlled variable.

RM: You really can’t properly use control theory to understand behavior until you know what you are trying to understand. That is, you have to know that behavior IS control (rather than output) before you can use control theory to understand it. So how about it. Let’s give the theory a rest for a while and start talking about the the phenomenon the theory is designed to explain: the phenomenon of CONTROL.

RM: Maybe I should start the ball rolling so here are some examples off the top of my head:

Behavior Controlled Variable Reference State Action Disturbances

============================================================================

Sip Tea Position of Cup At lips Lift, tip cup Amount of tea in cup

Scramble eggs Runniness of eggs Just right Stir, om burner Burner temp,

amount of eggs

Floss teeth Amount of stuff No stuff Pull floss Space between teeth,

between teeth between teeth amount of stuff

between teeth

Bar press in Amount of food Enough Press bar Presses per pellet

Skinner box size of pellet

Compliance with How far you will Pretty far Do what you Experimenter’s requests,

authority (Milgrim go along are told subject’s screams

experiment)

RM: OK, now you can all take it from there. Let’s get empirical!

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

_Boris_Hartman · September 15, 2015, 8:58am

What a construct again. When will you learn…

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 3:24 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Somebody should take this on

[From Rick Marken (2015.09.14.1820)]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

A neural network model of causative actions

TC: It might be useful. I don’t have the background or the time to take it on. No mention of Powers, Marken, or Yin.

Ted

RM: Thanks for this Ted. Their model does bear a superficial similarity to PCT but it misses the mark in one fundamental way: it doesn’t recognize that the behavior they are trying to explain is a process of CONTROLThis article made me realize that it is really impossible to find common ground with behavior theorists even when their theories sound so much like PCT because their theories are trying to explain behavior as an output produced by the organism.

HB : What’s the diference between your statement that behavior is Â»process of controlÂ« and behaviorists that also claim that behavior is Â»process of controlÂ« ? For example take Carver’s statement and his diagram of behavior is control and your RCT diagram of Â»behavior is controlÂ«, because that is not what is in Bill’s diagram.

RM :

For example, the theory in their paper is about how the actions that produce a result like a smashed cup are coded in terms of the perception of the result (the smashed cup) that they produce. Sounds very PCT until you realize they in reality the actions of the behaving system are not the only thing that produces the perceptual result. The result also depends on the state of variables in the world – disturbances-- at the time the actions take place. So the actions that will smash a cup are different depending on whether the cup is made of ceramic or plastic, whether it is dropped on a hard surface or rubber, etc. So the behavior of consistently smashing a cup is a control process inasmuch as actions must be varied appropriately to compensate for disturbances that would otherwise prevent production of that result.

HB : What a construct…JJJ. Do you really beleive yourself ? Did you find at least 90 % Â Bill’s statement in his literature that could support your fantasy.

RM:

The lesson that I take from this is that if we want to get people to join the PCT revolution we have to convince them, not that they are using the wrong theory (or a theory that is very similar to PCT) but that they are studying the wrong phenomenon. Behavior is not an OUTPUT caused by external events (behaviorism) or mental events (cognitive psychology); behavior IS CONTROL: the process of producing consistent, pre-selected (intended) results in a disturbance prone world.

HBÂ Stop bugging Rick. Behavior is not control. Perception is. Behavior is consequence of control. See it in diagram. And if anything is producing anything consistent in prone world are brains not limbs â€“ behavior. Brains or better nervous system is also producing consistent results in internal structure of organism, without limbs. So how will you call that process : glands are control ?

RM: I think it would really be nice if we could stop pushing the theory of PCT (for a while) and start pushing the the phenomenon that the theory is designed to explain: CONTROL, which is also know as the purposeful behavior of living organisms. I suggest that we go to some psychology journals and describe the controlling that is going on in the experiments described therein; or just describe some examples of controlling that you see happening in your everyday life. Maybe for each example of control (behavior) we could produce a description like that in Table I, p. 172 of LCS I. The first column in the table gives the informal name of the behavior – like “open the door”. The next column give the means (the actions) used to produce the intended result (the reference state of the controlled variable – grasping and pulling on the door in this case). The next column gives the variable controlled (angle of door) and the final column gives the reference state of the controlled variable (80 degrees). I would suggest also including disturbances to the controlled variable that would require appropriate variations in the actions so that the controlled variable is brought to the reference state (tilt of the car on the street, for example, would determine how much pull would have to be exerted to get the door open).

RM: So the phenomenon of CONTROL can be described completely without any reference to theory. Just by inspection we can see, for any particular named behavior, 1) the controlled variable 2) the actions that affect the state of that variable 3) the reference state of the variable and 4) the disturbance variations that also affect the state of the controlled variable.

HB : Yes you can see that. But it’s a question whether it’s true or not. It’s your perception.

RM: You really can’t properly use control theory to understand behavior until you know what you are trying to understand. That is, you have to know that behavior IS control (rather than output) before you can use control theory to understand it. So how about it. Let’s give the theory a rest for a while and start talking about the the phenomenon the theory is designed to explain: the phenomenon of CONTROL.

HB : Right. Stop using Â»control theoryÂ« or better PCT as you don’t understand it. What a misleading Â»constructÂ«. Do you ever read what you wrote ?

RM: Maybe I should start the ball rolling so here are some examples off the top of my head:

Behavior Controlled Variable Reference State Action Disturbances

============================================================================

Sip Tea Position of Cup At lips Lift, tip cup Amount of tea in cup

Scramble eggs Runniness of eggs Just right Stir, om burner Burner temp,

amount of eggs

Floss teeth Amount of stuff No stuff Pull floss Space between teeth,

between teeth between teeth amount of stuff

between teeth

Bar press in Amount of food Enough Press bar Presses per pellet

Skinner box size of pellet

Compliance with How far you will Pretty far Do what you Experimenter’s requests,

authority (Milgrim go along are told subject’s screams

experiment)

RM: OK, now you can all take it from there. Let’s get empirical!

HB : Well master Rick told the theoretical backgroung and others should perform it in practice. You are really joking aren’t you ?

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

wmansell · September 15, 2015, 12:20pm

What a construct again. When will you learn…

···

[From Rick Marken (2015.09.14.1820)]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

A neural network model of causative actions

TC: It might be useful. I don’t have the background or the time to take it on. No mention of Powers, Marken, or Yin.

Ted

RM: Thanks for this Ted. Their model does bear a superficial similarity to PCT but it misses the mark in one fundamental way: it doesn’t recognize that the behavior they are trying to explain is a process of CONTROLThis article made me realize that it is really impossible to find common ground with behavior theorists even when their theories sound so much like PCT because their theories are trying to explain behavior as an output produced by the organism.

HB : What’s the diference between your statement that behavior is Â»process of controlÂ« and behaviorists that also claim that behavior is Â»process of controlÂ« ? For example take Carver’s statement and his diagram of behavior is control and your RCT diagram of Â»behavior is controlÂ«, because that is not what is in Bill’s diagram.

RM :

For example, the theory in their paper is about how the actions that produce a result like a smashed cup are coded in terms of the perception of the result (the smashed cup) that they produce. Sounds very PCT until you realize they in reality the actions of the behaving system are not the only thing that produces the perceptual result. The result also depends on the state of variables in the world – disturbances-- at the time the actions take place. So the actions that will smash a cup are different depending on whether the cup is made of ceramic or plastic, whether it is dropped on a hard surface or rubber, etc. So the behavior of consistently smashing a cup is a control process inasmuch as actions must be varied appropriately to compensate for disturbances that would otherwise prevent production of that result.

HB : What a construct…JJJ. Do you really beleive yourself ? Did you find at least 90 % Bill’s statement in his literature that could support your fantasy.

RM:

The lesson that I take from this is that if we want to get people to join the PCT revolution we have to convince them, not that they are using the wrong theory (or a theory that is very similar to PCT) but that they are studying the wrong phenomenon. Behavior is not an OUTPUT caused by external events (behaviorism) or mental events (cognitive psychology); behavior IS CONTROL: the process of producing consistent, pre-selected (intended) results in a disturbance prone world.

HB Stop bugging Rick. Behavior is not control. Perception is. Behavior is consequence of control. See it in diagram. And if anything is producing anything consistent in prone world are brains not limbs – behavior. Brains or bettter nervous system is also producing consistent results in internal structure of organism, without limbs. So how will you call that process : glands are control ?