Spontefacting along

CSGnet Archive CSG1996
1

[From Bruce Abbott (960204.1130 EST)]

Rick Marken (960203.1630) --

How does an observer determine what a system is spontefacting?

The observer first observes and based on those observations develops one or
more hypotheses as to what variable or variables is/are spontefacted. A
suspected spontefacted variable is then disturbed and the action of the
system noted. If the system acts so as to oppose the effect of the
disturbance on the puatative spontefacted variable, then one would conclude
that the variable is indeed spontefacted (or a close correlate of it is).
This procedure is known as the "test for the spontefacted variable" ("the
Test").

Now here's another one for you. I write my first name several times on a
sheet of paper. Then I write it on the chalkboard large enough to be seen
from the back of the room. It looks pretty much the same each time.
Assuming that name writing is produced by a (multilevel) spontefaction
system, what if anything can I infer about the reference signal(s)?

Spontefactingly yours,

Bruce

2

[From Rick Marken (960204.1000)]

Bruce Abbott (960204.1130 EST) --

Me:

How does an observer determine what a system is spontefacting?

Bruce:

The observer first observes and based on those observations develops
one or more hypotheses as to what variable or variables is/are
spontefacted. A suspected spontefacted variable is then disturbed and
the action of the system noted. If the system acts so as to oppose the
effect of the disturbance on the puatative spontefacted variable, then
one would conclude that the variable is indeed spontefacted (or a close
correlate of it is). This procedure is known as the "test for the
spontefacted variable" ("the Test").

Excellent!

I have just one little nit. I think it would, in general, be better
to recommend that the behavior of the putative spontefacted variable
be noted rather than the "the action of the system". This eliminates many
problems, such as the necessity of controlling (or measuring) the effects
of all other possible disturbances to the putative spontefacted variable
and knowing how or what action is related to that variable. If you apply a
disturbance that should have a known effect on a variable and it
has far less than the predicted effect, then you should check to make
sure that the reason for that lack of effect is the action of some
system.

Now here's another one for you. I write my first name several times on a
sheet of paper. Then I write it on the chalkboard large enough to be seen
from the back of the room. It looks pretty much the same each time.
Assuming that name writing is produced by a (multilevel) spontefaction
system, what if anything can I infer about the reference signal(s)?

I don't really understand this question. I can't infer much about
reference signals until I know what perceptual variables are under
control. One variable that seems to be under control in this case
is the a visual pattern (your name); so I suppose there must be a
reference for the perception of the pattern "Bruce". I suppose that
I can infer that there must be reference settings for other perceptual
variables (such as muscle tensions, configurations of muscle tensions,
perceptions of pressure (at the fingers), patterns of perceptions of
pressure, perception of the scale of the pattern drawn, etc, that
specify what to perceive as the "means" of controlling the "Bruce"
pattern (and other) perceptions.

I'd like to hear what you think you can infer about reference signals
from what you describe. This is the best I can do.

But I do have another question for you, too.

First, let me summerize what I think are our very important points
of agreement.

We agree that:

1. The envinroment does _not_ spontefact behavior.

2. Spontefaction systems spontefact perceptual representations of
environmental variables.

3. It is possible to determine the variables spontefacted by as system
by doing The Test (applying disturbances to putative spontefacted
variables and looking for lack of effect as a result of opposing actions
by a spontefacting system).

Now here's the next question:

Do EABers (or any other psychologists) act as though they are aware
of the possibility that organisms may be spontefacting perceptual
representations of variables in the environment?

Best

Rick

3

[From Bruce Abbott (960204.1435 EST)]

Rick Marken (960204.1000) --

I have just one little nit. I think it would, in general, be better
to recommend that the behavior of the putative spontefacted variable
be noted rather than the "the action of the system". This eliminates many
problems, such as the necessity of controlling (or measuring) the effects
of all other possible disturbances to the putative spontefacted variable
and knowing how or what action is related to that variable. If you apply a
disturbance that should have a known effect on a variable and it
has far less than the predicted effect, then you should check to make
sure that the reason for that lack of effect is the action of some
system.

No problem, but either way gets to the same information: the spontefaction
system generates an action that strongly resists the effect of the
disturbance on the spontefacted variable. You can show that the disturbance
has less than the expected effect on the putative spontefacted variable (in
which case you must have some way to estimate what that effect would be in
the absence of spontefaction) or you can show that every push or pull on the
putative spontefacted variable is (nearly) canceled by an opposing action by
the system. If you can apply and withdraw the disturbance faster than the
system can react, the result is even more telling: you get an opposing
action that actually produces its own disturbance to the spv. This is what
the doctor sees when testing the "knee-jerk reflex" with that little rubber
hammer.

Now here's another one for you. I write my first name several times on a
sheet of paper. Then I write it on the chalkboard large enough to be seen
from the back of the room. It looks pretty much the same each time.
Assuming that name writing is produced by a (multilevel) spontefaction
system, what if anything can I infer about the reference signal(s)?

I don't really understand this question. I can't infer much about
reference signals until I know what perceptual variables are under
control. One variable that seems to be under control in this case
is the a visual pattern (your name); so I suppose there must be a
reference for the perception of the pattern "Bruce". I suppose that
I can infer that there must be reference settings for other perceptual
variables (such as muscle tensions, configurations of muscle tensions,
perceptions of pressure (at the fingers), patterns of perceptions of
pressure, perception of the scale of the pattern drawn, etc, that
specify what to perceive as the "means" of controlling the "Bruce"
pattern (and other) perceptions.

I'd like to hear what you think you can infer about reference signals
from what you describe. This is the best I can do.

You did well. You were able to infer that I was trying to create a
perception of my written name on the paper or chalkboard, and that this led
to the generation of a set of time-varying references for lower-level
systems. However, the particular limbs, movements, and muscle contractions
required to produce that perception would have differed across attempts, as
seen especially when comparing the production of "Bruce" on the paper versus
chalkboard. Yet the "handwriting" looks remarkably similar across examples,
despite the differing scales of movement, disturbances (e.g., joint
friction, gravity) and so on. The question I am really trying to get at
here is, can I learn anything from these observations about the internal
reference standard that presumably guided this fairly consistent production?

Now here's the next question:

Do EABers (or any other psychologists) act as though they are aware
of the possibility that organisms may be spontefacting perceptual
representations of variables in the environment?

That's really not a question I'm qualified to answer with any authority, but
in the areas with which I am familiar I have seen little evidence of it
beyond a superficial recognition that such systems exist and serve to
"regulate" certain physiological variables (homeostasis). I have seen a few
attempts to apply spontefaction principles to behavioral data with varying
degrees of success (Staddon, Timberlake, Killeen). Then there's guys like
Sam Saunders, Chris Cherpas, and me who are trying to gain a deeper
understanding of such systems and apply that understanding to the analysis
of operant data.

Regards,

Bruce

4

[From Rick Marken (960204.1300)]

Bruce Abbott (960204.1435 EST)

Me:

Do EABers (or any other psychologists) act as though they are aware
of the possibility that organisms may be spontefacting perceptual
representations of variables in the environment?

Bruce:

That's really not a question I'm qualified to answer with any authority,

But you just described how to determine whether a system is spontefacting
by determining what perceptual aspects of the environment it is spontefacting.
So I think you are quite well qualified to judge whether or not EABers (and
other psychologists) are acting like they are aware of the possibility
that organisms may be spontefacting.

Maybe you could try answering the question now that you're an
authorized authority?

While you're at it, perhaps you could answer another question that
possibly should have preceded the one above. The question is:

What behavioral phenomenon does perceptual spontefaction theory
explain?

Best

Rick