[spam] Re: A Stumbling Block

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2006.11.09.0930)]

Fred Nickols (2006.11.09.0653 EST)] --

It dawned on me a little while ago that I'm having a problem with this
string of words: behavior is the control of perception.

I don't have any problem with the following strings:

   Behavior serves to control perception

   The function of behavior is to control perception

   Behaving controls perception

It's the IS in that first string that's bothering me.

I have for many years, in both technical and commonplace settings,
understood behavior to be the activity of the organism; actions. So, it
seems to me that when we say behavior is the control of perception we aren't
just offering up a new explanation or account of behavior, we are redefining
it as something other than the activity of the organism. That bothers me.

Help!

Relief is on the way.

We say that behavior is the control of perception because the things we call behaviors -- walking, eating, kissing, answering questions, waving, catching fly balls, etc etc -- are, from the point of view of PCT, the observable aspects of the the process of controlling perceptions. When I see you running to catch a ball, what I am seeing is the observable side effects of your control of your own visual and kinesthetic perceptions. I call my perception of your behavior -- the body movements that I see -- your behavior, catching behavior to be specific. But what PCT teaches me is that what I see as your behavior (all those visible movements) are not really what you are doing. What you are doing is controlling a whole bunch of perceptual variable, like the vertical optical velocity of the ball. You to this by acting to keep those perceptions at their reference. As a side effect you produce those visible patterns of motion that an observer (like me) sees as your behavior.

A problem is that, since the word behavior is used to describe observable activities of an organism, then tendency is to use it to describe the action component of a control loop. That can be confusing because the action component of a control loop does not necessarily correspond to what we see as behavior. When you catch a ball one action that is used to control the optical variable is muscle contraction, a "behavior" that the observer can't even see. Another action is change in position relative to the ball; this is an action that can be seen as behavior. But there are many behaviors we see that don't necessarily correspond to any action involved in the control of perception process. For example, when you run to catch a ball you create vortexes in the air near your body. With high tech equipment these "behaviors" could be seen more easily; they are behaviors because they are created by you as you run to catch the ball. But they are an irrelevant side effect of the process of controlling the optical perception that is "catching a ball".

So the phrase "behavior is the control of perception" assumes that standard meaning of "behavior" as the things we see people doing. Part of learning PCT is learning that what we see as "behavior" is basically a side effect of the process of perceptual control. When control theorists talk about how control theory works, I think it's best to use some agreed on terminology when talking technically. So the output or action in a control process should always be called output or action, not behavior. Behavior is a non-technical term for the stuff we see people doing.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[Fred_Nickols1]

[From Fred Nickols (2006.11.09.1243 EST)] --
      

[From Rick Marken (2006.11.09.0930)]

First, thanks for the help.

Second, I'm still in need of some help.

I think I understand what you say below. It is consistent with the grasp I've had of PCT all along (with minor glitches here and there). However, I still have a problem and, to some extent, it's exacerbated by some of what you write below.

Relief is on the way.

We say that behavior is the control of perception because the things we
call behaviors -- walking, eating, kissing, answering questions,
waving, catching fly balls, etc etc -- are, from the point of view of
PCT, the observable aspects of the the process of controlling
perceptions.

So far so good; I get that.

When I see you running to catch a ball, what I am seeing
is the observable side effects of your control of your own visual and
kinesthetic perceptions. I call my perception of your behavior -- the
body movements that I see -- your behavior, catching behavior to be
specific. But what PCT teaches me is that what I see as your behavior
(all those visible movements) are not really what you are doing.

Hmm. What I see you doing isn't what you are doing? I would have been more inclined to say that I can't tell what you're up to (i.e., your purpose or aim or goal) by simply observing what you are doing (i.e., observing your actions, your behavior). The "Test" is needed for that. But overt behavior is overt behavior is it not? Its purpose might be hidden from view but not the activity itself. (Don't respond just yet; wait until the very last bit.)

What
you are doing is controlling a whole bunch of perceptual variable, like
the vertical optical velocity of the ball. You to this by acting to
keep those perceptions at their reference. As a side effect you produce
those visible patterns of motion that an observer (like me) sees as
your behavior.

Agreed, but those visible patterns of motion still qualify and classify as behavior, do they not? If not...well no wonder PCT is having problems.

A problem is that, since the word behavior is used to describe
observable activities of an organism,

It's also used to refer to covert or ordinarily unobservable activities as well. To be sure, some internal activities can be observed via special instrumentation but some covert behaviors (e.g., subvocal speech as Watson called it) are probably too subtle to be observed in a recognizable way. I can, for example, monitor brain waves and perhaps say that something is going on but I don't really have a clue as to what. I can say, "Look, Rick is running across the field" and others would agree; but I doubt I can say, "Look, Rick is mulling over that last dumb question from Nickols" (although I am sure some might agree).

then tendency is to use it to
describe the action component of a control loop.

That's what I thought behavior - at least the overt variety was - the action component of the perceptual control loop and I don't think that action component equates to the control of perception. I thought it was, as I've learned recently, a property of the entire loop, not just a component.

That can be confusing
because the action component of a control loop does not necessarily
correspond to what we see as behavior. When you catch a ball one
action that is used to control the optical variable is muscle
contraction, a "behavior" that the observer can't even see. Another
action is change in position relative to the ball; this is an action
that can be seen as behavior.

I for one probably would never occur to point to that changing position as behavior. I would be more inclined to say that the catcher is running, perhaps in this or that direction and at a steady, accelerating or decelerating rate, but I would have viewed the changing position of the catcher in relation to the ball as the result of the catcher's behavior.

But there are many behaviors we see that
don't necessarily correspond to any action involved in the control of
perception process. For example, when you run to catch a ball you
create vortexes in the air near your body. With high tech equipment
these "behaviors" could be seen more easily; they are behaviors because
they are created by you as you run to catch the ball. But they are an
irrelevant side effect of the process of controlling the optical
perception that is "catching a ball".

Okay, so I run and I create drafts or breezes or "vortexes" but how do those classify as behaviors? They're certainly not my behaviors. Aren't they simply the result of my passing rapidly through the air space (actually, at my age I probably ought not to say rapidly).

So the phrase "behavior is the control of perception" assumes that
standard meaning of "behavior" as the things we see people doing.

That's where I'm having difficulty. To say that behavior IS the control of perception is to say that it is something other than the activity of the organism. If a requirement of PCT is to redefine behavior as something other than the activity of the organism (instead of account for or explain it differently), then I can see why PCT would run up against some brick walls.

Part
of learning PCT is learning that what we see as "behavior" is basically
a side effect of the process of perceptual control.

I don't have any problem with that, either, except that "side effect" or "by-product" are terms that will give some people fits. But that's a different matter than the basic definition of behavior itself.

When control
theorists talk about how control theory works, I think it's best to use
some agreed on terminology when talking technically. So the output or
action in a control process should always be called output or action,
not behavior. Behavior is a non-technical term for the stuff we see
people doing.

Behavior might be a non-technical term for PCTers but I don't think it is for millions of other people.

I'm gonna have to give this a whole lot more thought.

Dang, my head hurts.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net