[8.19.15 1]
A couple of weeks ago, somebody was saying something about something along the lines of this: perceptions are “stable” due to the properties of environmental objects to sit where they stand when we place them on a surface and remove our influence. Did someone say this?
PY: Found it, it was Kent (on 8/15). He says it all the way at the end.
KMC: There’s a conundrum here. Clearly, it’s our perceptions that are controlled, but at the same time we have to believe that there is something in the external environment (to which we have no access except by means of our perceptions) that corresponds
in some way to those controlled perceptions. The alternative, it seems to me, is a complete rejection of the evidence of the very senses that provide our controlled perceptions.Â
KMC: I expect that my solution to the conundrum will not work for everybody, and it certainly didn’t gain much traction when I tried it out a time or two before on CSGnet, but in recent years my way of cutting through this conceptual knot has been
to describe what happens in the environment as “stabilization� instead of control. When we resist the effects of disturbances in order to control our perceptions, I would argue, we also
stabilize certain features of the external environment (the things that
would be more variable in the absence of our efforts to resist disturbances to those perceptions). These environmental
features aren’t controlled in the sense that they are matched as precisely as possible with references defined strictly in terms of the physics
of the situation, since it’s only perceptions that we have work with, but these environmental things vary less over time than they would without our attempts to control the situation as we see it.Â
KMC: One nice thing about physical objects is that they can often be stabilized for considerable periods of time without any continued effort
to control the things we’ve stabilized, as we perceive them. An object that someone has fashioned out of wood,
stone, metal, pottery or the right kinds plastic can be expected to hold its shape for quite a while before something happens to change it (perhaps an accident or the ravages of rust or decay). If that weren’t true, anthropologists would know little or nothing
about long-dead civilizations. ** And when we place a physical object in a
given position we can expect gravity to hold it stably in that position
until someone else comes along to move it or some physical force (an earthquake?) intervenes. (emphasis mine -PY)**
PY: By “physical” object, I’m sure you’re referring to a “solid, geometric” object. Consider a polyhedron, coming from the Greek roots poly (many) and hedron (seat). A polyhedron has many seats on which it can be set down.Â
PY: Kepler argued that because a cube can be placed flat on a table in a way that it is not easily displaced, it is the most stable of the Platonic solids, thus it must be the earth. This exact line of thought was around 2000 years earlier, coming from Plato’s Timaeus, in which he described the Greek atomic model: To the earth let us give the cube, because of the four kinds of bodies earth is the most immobile and the most pliable - which is what the solid whose faces are the most secure must of necessity turn out to be, more so than the others.…*And of the solid figures that are left, we shall next assign the least mobile of them to water, to fire the most mobile, and to air the one in between. * The Greek atomic model was universally accepted until the birth of modern chemistry with Robert Boyle’s The sceptical Chymist (1661).Â
PY: Polyhedrons are characterized by points (vertices, V), lines (edges, E), and surfaces (faces, F). The sum V - E + F is a quantity intrinsically associated with a polyhedron. In the lingo of topologists, we say that it is an invariant of the surface. Upon discovering the formula, Euler wrote: “It astonishes me that these general properties of sterometry [solid geometry] have not, as far as I know, been noticed by anyone else”. Descartes actually discovered the formula 100 years before, but the results were contained in a manuscript which wasn’t discovered until 200 years later.Â
PY: This Euler number turned out to have some very elegant and unexpected applications beyond the study of polyhedra - extending to topology, geometry, graph theory, and dynamical systems (I think of these sorts of formulae, which serve as bridges between different mathematical fields, as evolved traits upon which exaptations follow). Â Â Â Â
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:48 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
[8.19.15 1]
A couple of weeks ago, somebody was saying something about something along the lines of this: perceptions are “stable” due to the properties of environmental objects to sit where they stand when we place them on a surface and remove our influence. Did someone say this?
I like this Kent, and it might reignite debate between Rupert, Rick and Boris in a constructive direction…
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:48 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
[8.19.15 1]
A couple of weeks ago, somebody was saying something about something along the lines of this: perceptions are “stable” due to the properties of environmental objects to sit where they stand when we place them on a surface and remove our influence. Did someone say this?
Hopefully it won’t reignite debate. Hopefully it’ll ignite a discussion of polyhedra.Â
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:48 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
[8.19.15 1]
A couple of weeks ago, somebody was saying something about something along the lines of this: perceptions are “stable” due to the properties of environmental objects to sit where they stand when we place them on a surface and remove our influence. Did someone say this?
[From Rick Marken (2015.09.20.1225)]
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: I like this Kent, and it might reignite debate between Rupert, Rick and Boris in a constructive direction…
RM: The debate, about whether something in the environment is controlled when you control a perception, is a pseudo-debate that has nothing to do with the science of PCT. In the PCT model, a perceptual variable is a neural signal that is a function of the sensory effects of environmental variables. When a perceptual variable is controlled the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perceptual variable – the controlled quantity, q.i – is also controlled. This is PCT 101.
RM: When one does research to test the PCT model against actual behavior one has to include calculations of the function that converts the relevant environmental variables into what are presumed to be the controlled perceptual variables. For example, when I test control models of object interception I have to convert the relevant environmental variables – the 3 D coordinates of the object to be intercepted and oft he pursuer who s trying to intercept the object – into their presumed sensory effects and, ultimately, into perceptions derived from these sensory effects. When the model runs it is imitating the behavior of the pursuer by acting to control the aspects of the environment – the movement of the object relative to the pursuer – that correspond to the perceptions it controls. There is no debate about whether or not this is how the model works; it’s all there in computer code.
RM: So for a person who does research to test PCT there is no debate about whether an aspect of the environment is controlled when a perception is controlled. The idea that an aspect of the environment is not controlled when a perception is controlled would never even occur to a PCT researcher. Arguing that this is the case is tantamount to saying that PCT Is not a scientific model because if it were true that only perception and not the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perception were controlled then the PCT model would be untestable. It would mean that it is impossible to build a PCT model of behaviors like object interception because the perceptions that are controlled are either a function of nothing or, if they are a function of environmental variables, the model can’t control the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that function.
RM: I think the idea that PCT says that we only control perceptions and not the environmental correlates thereof could only occur to a person who approaches PCT purely theoretically; or philosophically, or ideologically. My interest in PCT has always been scientific; I like to develop tests to see how well the theory explains what we actually observe. So this debate is irrelevant to me. So debate all you like (or move on to polyhedra, as Philip suggests). These purely theoretical discussions are really of very little interest to me.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
RM:
In the PCT model, a perceptual variable is a neural signal that is a function of the sensory effects of environmental variables. When a perceptual variable is controlled the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perceptual variable – the controlled quantity, q.i
– is also controlled. This is PCT 101.
PY:
The
next model you produce must include a structure called a neuron and everything must occur using neurons as the intermediate. You need to link neurons to eyes and describe how the q.i is converted into perceptions. If you don’t do this, you’re not performing a simulation any more than a mimickery. On the other hand, if you want to be abstract and talk about real objects as if they were geometric points, you should talk about mathematical concepts. And in order to do so, you
should spend more time reading about things other than psychology while
you’re listening to your Mozart symphonies. The entire field of psychology can take a few years to be summed up, as Powers demonstrated. Mathematics is not so simple. I doubt you have the nerve
to attack a standing mathematical problem with pencil and paper. But someone will have to do so.
RM:
When one does research to test the PCT model against actual behavior one
has to include calculations…it’s all there in computer code.
PY:
I’m sorry to report that there
is no significant difference between PCT programs and ordinary control theory programs. The programs that you guys write, and the robots that you guys build, they’re so much simpler than what everybody else is
doing with ordinary control theory. Everything that Bill was talking about in relation to computer programs had to do with diagrams of the information flow
(featuring Chip from the Byte articles). From that point on, however, the form of the diagram itself needs to evolve, not the way its discussed. This is not what I see. We can assume that Bill was like everybody else, looking around, trying to describe what he saw. He knew a lot about the
different ways people talk about things. But he never really went too far into the theory of abstract coding. All I see in PCT is a couple very simple programs, used to demonstrate very simple concepts. With PCT, you’re just trying to avoid getting wet, so you think about whether or not you should bring your umbrella. What kind of anticipation are we talking about here?! Anticipate mathematical concepts… Everything I see is so ordinary. There is nothing new PCT has to offer. I’ve already absorbed its entire genome, and it has a very prokaryotic feel to it. There are more things than PCT, and if you don’t study every last essential concept, you will die. FYI, the polyhedrons are important because they provide the link between geometry and topology. In particular, the conditions under which topology controls geometry. But I doubt anybody is interested in the phenomenon of control as it is understood in other fields.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2015.09.20.1225)]
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: I like this Kent, and it might reignite debate between Rupert, Rick and Boris in a constructive direction…
RM: The debate, about whether something in the environment is controlled when you control a perception, is a pseudo-debate that has nothing to do with the science of PCT. In the PCT model, a perceptual variable is a neural signal that is a function of the sensory effects of environmental variables. When a perceptual variable is controlled the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perceptual variable – the controlled quantity, q.i – is also controlled. This is PCT 101.
RM: When one does research to test the PCT model against actual behavior one has to include calculations of the function that converts the relevant environmental variables into what are presumed to be the controlled perceptual variables. For example, when I test control models of object interception I have to convert the relevant environmental variables – the 3 D coordinates of the object to be intercepted and oft he pursuer who s trying to intercept the object – into their presumed sensory effects and, ultimately, into perceptions derived from these sensory effects. When the model runs it is imitating the behavior of the pursuer by acting to control the aspects of the environment – the movement of the object relative to the pursuer – that correspond to the perceptions it controls. There is no debate about whether or not this is how the model works; it’s all there in computer code.
RM: So for a person who does research to test PCT there is no debate about whether an aspect of the environment is controlled when a perception is controlled. The idea that an aspect of the environment is not controlled when a perception is controlled would never even occur to a PCT researcher. Arguing that this is the case is tantamount to saying that PCT Is not a scientific model because if it were true that only perception and not the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perception were controlled then the PCT model would be untestable. It would mean that it is impossible to build a PCT model of behaviors like object interception because the perceptions that are controlled are either a function of nothing or, if they are a function of environmental variables, the model can’t control the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that function.
RM: I think the idea that PCT says that we only control perceptions and not the environmental correlates thereof could only occur to a person who approaches PCT purely theoretically; or philosophically, or ideologically. My interest in PCT has always been scientific; I like to develop tests to see how well the theory explains what we actually observe. So this debate is irrelevant to me. So debate all you like (or move on to polyhedra, as Philip suggests). These purely theoretical discussions are really of very little interest to me.
Best
Rick
Richard S. Marken
www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
–
Hi Philip and Rick,
Sorry to spoil the party and occupy the middle ground again, but I would suggest that the perspective that PCT provides has the capacity to transform the behavioural, social and life sciences in a way like no other theory I am aware of. Alongside the perspective it provides on behaviour, it goes well beyond other theories of behaviour in its specification of functional, mathematical and topological (I include here anatomical) components. Yet, I also consider that there is a huge way to go in terms of the mathematical, topological and physiological specification of PCT models, not to mention the details of hierarchical organisation and modes.
All the best,
Warren
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:25 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
RM:
In the PCT model, a perceptual variable is a neural signal that is a function of the sensory effects of environmental variables. When a perceptual variable is controlled the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perceptual variable – the controlled quantity, q.i
– is also controlled. This is PCT 101.
PY:
The
next model you produce must include a structure called a neuron and everything must occur using neurons as the intermediate. You need to link neurons to eyes and describe how the q.i is converted into perceptions. If you don’t do this, you’re not performing a simulation any more than a mimickery. On the other hand, if you want to be abstract and talk about real objects as if they were geometric points, you should talk about mathematical concepts. And in order to do so, you
should spend more time reading about things other than psychology while
you’re listening to your Mozart symphonies. The entire field of psychology can take a few years to be summed up, as Powers demonstrated. Mathematics is not so simple. I doubt you have the nerve
to attack a standing mathematical problem with pencil and paper. But someone will have to do so.
RM:
When one does research to test the PCT model against actual behavior one
has to include calculations…it’s all there in computer code.PY:
I’m sorry to report that there
is no significant difference between PCT programs and ordinary control theory programs. The programs that you guys write, and the robots that you guys build, they’re so much simpler than what everybody else is
doing with ordinary control theory. Everything that Bill was talking about in relation to computer programs had to do with diagrams of the information flow
(featuring Chip from the Byte articles). From that point on, however, the form of the diagram itself needs to evolve, not the way its discussed. This is not what I see. We can assume that Bill was like everybody else, looking around, trying to describe what he saw. He knew a lot about the
different ways people talk about things. But he never really went too far into the theory of abstract coding. All I see in PCT is a couple very simple programs, used to demonstrate very simple concepts. With PCT, you’re just trying to avoid getting wet, so you think about whether or not you should bring your umbrella. What kind of anticipation are we talking about here?! Anticipate mathematical concepts… Everything I see is so ordinary. There is nothing new PCT has to offer. I’ve already absorbed its entire genome, and it has a very prokaryotic feel to it. There are more things than PCT, and if you don’t study every last essential concept, you will die. FYI, the polyhedrons are important because they provide the link between geometry and topology. In particular, the conditions under which topology controls geometry. But I doubt anybody is interested in the phenomenon of control as it is understood in other fields.
–
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2015.09.20.1225)]
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: I like this Kent, and it might reignite debate between Rupert, Rick and Boris in a constructive direction…
RM: The debate, about whether something in the environment is controlled when you control a perception, is a pseudo-debate that has nothing to do with the science of PCT. In the PCT model, a perceptual variable is a neural signal that is a function of the sensory effects of environmental variables. When a perceptual variable is controlled the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perceptual variable – the controlled quantity, q.i – is also controlled. This is PCT 101.
RM: When one does research to test the PCT model against actual behavior one has to include calculations of the function that converts the relevant environmental variables into what are presumed to be the controlled perceptual variables. For example, when I test control models of object interception I have to convert the relevant environmental variables – the 3 D coordinates of the object to be intercepted and oft he pursuer who s trying to intercept the object – into their presumed sensory effects and, ultimately, into perceptions derived from these sensory effects. When the model runs it is imitating the behavior of the pursuer by acting to control the aspects of the environment – the movement of the object relative to the pursuer – that correspond to the perceptions it controls. There is no debate about whether or not this is how the model works; it’s all there in computer code.
RM: So for a person who does research to test PCT there is no debate about whether an aspect of the environment is controlled when a perception is controlled. The idea that an aspect of the environment is not controlled when a perception is controlled would never even occur to a PCT researcher. Arguing that this is the case is tantamount to saying that PCT Is not a scientific model because if it were true that only perception and not the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perception were controlled then the PCT model would be untestable. It would mean that it is impossible to build a PCT model of behaviors like object interception because the perceptions that are controlled are either a function of nothing or, if they are a function of environmental variables, the model can’t control the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that function.
RM: I think the idea that PCT says that we only control perceptions and not the environmental correlates thereof could only occur to a person who approaches PCT purely theoretically; or philosophically, or ideologically. My interest in PCT has always been scientific; I like to develop tests to see how well the theory explains what we actually observe. So this debate is irrelevant to me. So debate all you like (or move on to polyhedra, as Philip suggests). These purely theoretical discussions are really of very little interest to me.
Best
Rick
Richard S. Marken
www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
–
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
Well, the only thing PCT let’s me do that I couldn’t do before is to clearly see the invisible ceiling above everyone’s head. But I see little difference between PCT from 1960 and PCT in 2015, which leads me to think that there is a ceiling over PCT as well. I attribute it to the smugness and complacency on the part of its theoreticians. Most people here are happy enough to give their own opinion (the same opinion they’ve had for years) and stand upon it obstinately just because they don’t have a better opinion. There is no sense of urgency to dive into the unknown and push the field forward. I just don’t see the strain. I see people repeating their well-worn explanations of phenomena. And I can tell by the characteristics of the typos in peoples’ responses that the explanations they give are rather automatic, as if they’ve said it so many times that they’re only going to type it once and not even look at it again to make sure it’s correct. I just don’t know if these are worthy professors or not. Personally, I read 300 pages a day to make sure I have new things to say (I’ll take a 1000 page textbook meant for two 10 week classes and read it in 3 days). I wish somebody would try as hard to learn as I do. Or at least try to understand the magnitude of my effort. Pretty soon I will outlearn Bill. But who cares? It’s very annoying to discuss a field as important as genetics only to hear, I’m not interested. It’s like dealing with children. Maybe I should write a PCT book about grown ups growing up. I’ll call it People only Care about Themselves.
Hi Philip, I think what you are doing is brilliant and you should keep it up. I think the fact that PCT has not changed massively since 1960 is more to do with the fact that science and society still hasn't woken up to the perspective of behaviour as the control of perception, so PCT hasn't needed to - it is still a more accurate, parsimonious and wide reaching theory than the other theories out there. But to use Bill's inspiration as a springboard to forge into the vast gaps in other areas of science is just the right thing to do!
All the best,
Warren
On 21 Sep 2015, at 19:44, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <pyeranos@ucla.edu> wrote:
Well, the only thing PCT let's me do that I couldn't do before is to clearly see the invisible ceiling above everyone's head. But I see little difference between PCT from 1960 and PCT in 2015, which leads me to think that there is a ceiling over PCT as well. I attribute it to the smugness and complacency on the part of its theoreticians. Most people here are happy enough to give their own opinion (the same opinion they've had for years) and stand upon it obstinately just because they don't have a better opinion. There is no sense of urgency to dive into the unknown and push the field forward. I just don't see the strain. I see people repeating their well-worn explanations of phenomena. And I can tell by the characteristics of the typos in peoples' responses that the explanations they give are rather automatic, as if they've said it so many times that they're only going to type it once and not even look at it again to make sure it's correct. I just don't know if these are worthy professors or not. Personally, I read 300 pages a day to make sure I have new things to say (I'll take a 1000 page textbook meant for two 10 week classes and read it in 3 days). I wish somebody would try as hard to learn as I do. Or at least try to understand the magnitude of my effort. Pretty soon I will outlearn Bill. But who cares? It's very annoying to discuss a field as important as genetics only to hear, I'm not interested. It's like dealing with children. Maybe I should write a PCT book about grown ups growing up. I'll call it People only Care about Themselves.
[From Rick Marken (2015.09.20.1225)]
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 9:24 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: stability of perception
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: I like this Kent, and it might reignite debate between Rupert, Rick and Boris in a constructive direction…
RM: The debate, about whether something in the environment is controlled when you control a perception, is a pseudo-debate that has nothing to do with the science of PCT. In the PCT model, a perceptual variable is a neural signal that is a function of the sensory effects of environmental variables. When a perceptual variable is controlled the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perceptual variable – the controlled quantity, q.i – is also controlled. This is PCT 101.
HB : So show us this in BC:P, where did Bill write this.
First problem showed Martin. If the whole »perceptual signal« is controlled, than it’s obvioulsy that »controlled« and »uncontrolled« perception are »controlled«. How is that possible ? I thought so at first but Martin made a good point.
And the second problem with your »statement« about »When a perceptual variable is controlled the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perceptual variable – the controlled quantity, q.i – is also controlled.« is …
Bill P :
….itt is even more apparent that a first-order perceptual signal reflects only what happens at the sensory ending : the source of stimulation is completely undefined and unsensed. If any information exist about the source of stimulation, it exists only distributed over millinons of first-order perceptual signals and is explicit in none of them.
HB : I know that you don’t understand what Bill wrote about at least beggining three levels of hierarchy. Bill has 10x more knowledge than you have, and first three levels are not only hypothetical but also grounded with physiology. See citated literature. I can just admire him that he managed with such an obscure literaure and knowledge in that time to make so compact theory which can resist even physiology »facts« in modern times (2015) and which will dissapear if you continue with your self-regulation and behaviorism. Why can’t you just represnt his knowledge and direct people to citations in his literature. Why I have to do this ?
You will never come to 10% of Bill’s knowledge, but yet you have courage to mess arround on CSGnet forum with your ignorancy and mislead people. Do yo understand what kind of responsability is this ? I bet you dont’ from you writtings. You think only on yourself.
RM: When one does research to test the PCT model against actual behavior one has to include calculations of the function that converts the relevant environmental variables into what are presumed to be the controlled perceptual variables. For example, when I test control models of object interception I have to convert the relevant environmental variables – the 3 D coordinates of the object to be intercepted and oft he pursuer who s trying to intercept the object – into their presumed sensory effects and, ultimately, into perceptions derived from these sensory effects. When the model runs it is imitating the behavior of the pursuer by acting to control the aspects of the environment – the movement of the object relative to the pursuer – that correspond to the perceptions it controls. There is no debate about whether or not this is how the model works; it’s all there in computer code.
HB : Remember Bill’s Words that final arbiter is nature. And »your tests« have to be in accordance with »evidences« of other sciences which are getting knowledge from nature, specialy physiology. But you are blind on this field, aren’t you and you are »pushing« your »extremly limited« knowledge (10% of Bill’s) in front, because you don’t know anything else and all here have to obey your extremly limited knowledgem, because Powers ladies gives you such a » power«.
RM: So for a person who does research to test PCT there is no debate about whether an aspect of the environment is controlled when a perception is controlled.
HB : This is your testing and don’t forget to tell that most of your tests and demos failed. So only in your failed tests and demos we can see that »aspect of environment« is controlled. And of course in this logic also »behavior of people can be controled« as they can be »controled variable« in environment.
RM : The idea that an aspect of the environment is not controlled when a perception is controlled would never even occur to a PCT researcher.
RM earlier :
This makes it clear that your actions (outputs) don’t necessarily have to have a direct effect on the environment… For example, when I move mmy head
HB : If actions don’t have direct efffect on environment, how can anything even »correlate« be cotrolled.
First it’s obviously that you don’t know to citate sources of your knowledge or you »borrow it as yours«, second you admitted that you were wrong that every behavior means« controlled effect on »controlled environmental variable« as you call it, and third this is the rare example where you used PCT in right way. Another example was in conversation with Fred where you used »which perception to control« in training process. Â
RM : Arguing that this is the case is tantamount to saying that PCT Is not a scientific model because if it were true that only perception and not the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perception were controlled then the PCT model would be untestable. It would mean that it is impossible to build a PCT model of behaviors like object interception because the perceptions that are controlled are either a function of nothing or, if they are a function of environmental variables, the model can’t control the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that function.
RM: I think the idea that PCT says that we only control perceptions and not the environmental correlates thereof could only occur to a person who approaches PCT purely theoretically; or philosophically, or ideologically.
HB : You have Bill’s diagram, and try to find where what you say it’s true. You are writing with any Bill’s citation, promoting only your RCT (Rick’s Control Theory). Powers Ladies will you do something ? Will you finally demand from Rick that he support his »selfregulation« findings with Bill’s citations.
My interest in PCT has always been scientific; I like to develop tests to see how well the theory explains what we actually observe. So this debate is irrelevant to me. So debate all you like (or move on to polyhedra, as Philip suggests). These purely theoretical discussions are really of very little interest to me.
HB : Your interest in PCT as I see it is egoistic, for your promotion, and because of your egoistic standpoint Bill will never come to Psychological Dictionary. Â Did you do something or others that PCT as psychological thoery come into Dictionary ?
Best,
Boris
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble