[From Rick Marken (941219.1550)]
Bruce Abbott (941218.1650 EST) --
unlike you, I am not yet convinced that all knowledge accumulated
during the past 100 years under the reinforcement tradition becomes
immediately irrelevant once one takes a PCT perspective.
I'm not claiming that "all knowledge" accumulated under the reinforcement
tradition is irrelevant. All I'm saying is that the basic assumption of the
reinforcement (and the S-R, functionalist, structuralist, gestalt,
cognitive, "dynamical systems", and whatever) tradition is wrong. The
basic assumption is lineal causality; most of the "knowledge" (data)
accumulated in support of this (and other) traditions is collected in the
context a methodology that assumes lineal causality. Because living systems
are actually control systems, operating according to the principles of
_circular_ causality, most of the the "knowledge" accumulated about these
systems using the "scientific method" in psychology (which assumes lineal
causality) is misleading. This is the point of my "Blind men and the
elephant" paper; "knowledge" accumulated under the assumption of lineal
causality gives a false impression of the nature of the "elephant" of
control. (If you don't have a copy of this paper, just ask and I'll send you
one.)
I keep looking at that Necker Cube, first from the TRT viewpoint, then
from >PCT. They are both descriptions of the same cube, although you have to
undergo a kind of perceptual reorganization (as the Gestaltists put it) to
see it.
Yes. And the "Blind men..." paper shows that TRT describes only one view of
the cube -- and misinterprets the view at that. PCT describes all views
(the TRT, S-R, and cognitive views) and provides one simple explanation
for all three: control of perception.
This examination leads me to ask how certain phenomena observed and
explained in traditional research can be interpreted from a PCT viewpoint.
This is an excellent goal, to the extent that it can be acheived. It's pretty
easy to explain "scheduling" data with PCT; the organism is clearly
controlling a variable despite changes in the feedback function (schedule).
The "law of effect" is another matter. As a statement of fact PCT shows that
it is wrong; the response that produces a particular consequence is not
repeated (in general) because, if it were, the consequence would NOT repeat
(and PCT says that the organism is controlling -- or trying to control --
the consequence). As a statement of theory it is also wrong. PCT shows that
effects do not strengthen outputs OR behaviors (control processes); if they
did, the organism would not be in control of these effects. PCT shows
that there is no alternative explanation of the law of effect because the law
of effect is neither a law nor an effect; it's just a mistake.
Best
Rick