[From Bjoern Simonsen ( 990318.24:00 EU-time)]
[from Mary Powers 9903.18]
[From Rick Marken (990318.0810)]
About Wiener's definition of behavior. If he was talking about behavior as
the modification of an object, then he was talking about _beh: ioral
results_ - the _outcome_ of behavior, which is a perception.:
Your mode of expression is OK. But I stand in need of being very explicit. For mee it is important to mark that behavior is the modification of an object and no more.. It is another thing that if anybody is going to study this behavior, or control it the behavior must be detactable externally the object. If the modification of the object isn't detectable externally nobody can study the behavior (the modification of the object).
It is also important for me to know that when I study behavior (the modification of an object) I very well know that I am studying something that is detectable externally.
It is more than words when I express that when I study behavior I mean that I stydy what I perceive.
Your words 990312 to John Appel harmonize with my apprehension _The position of the organizers of this net is that control of behavior is a failed concept_.
You write also
>.........And he (N. Wiener) was
talking about a very limited range of behavior: "modifying objects" - how
about modifying sequences or relationships or the principle of modification
I agree, but I perceive objects as being everything. It may be a battery, a car, a plane, a human beeing, a group of human beeings, the amarican people and more.
If the object is a swimmer I perceive the movement of her armes, I study the sequences of arm-movement. If I am her trainer I can try to control the sequences of what I perceive.
If the object is a group of human beings, a family I can study the relationships between children and their father. I stydy what I perceive with my eyes or what I perceive in a questionaire they have worked with.
The point is that studying the _modifications in an object_ doesnt imply that we are
talking about a very limited range of behavior. I depends which object we are stuying.
Another meaning is _action_, the act of _doing_ behavior, which also is a
perception: you only know you are behaving when you can see and feel and
even hear yourself moving around, talking, etc
_I only know I am behaving (my body is modifying) when I can see and feel hand hear (perceive something).
I only know when any object is behaving when I can see and feel and hear the object modifying_
As for purposeful and non-purposeful behavior, I think most (all?) behavior
is purposive. It may look purposeless or random to an observer, and the
actor may not be aware of what he is doing, but neither of those conditions
mean that a behavior is purposeless.
This is interesting. May be I agree. But I am seldom interested in studying, I am nor interested in controling non-purposeful perceptions of any modyfications of an object (if there is anything we can call non-purposeful behavior).
Rick, you wrote:
How about "behavior is the control of perceptual variables"?
No, I prefere
_Behavior is any active and purposeful modification of an object, detectable externally_
I agree that I control perceptual variables, but I have a respect for the object and I never insist that I control all the modifications in an object.
.....The computer, using
the Test for the Controlled Variable, _knows_ which
square you are moving (controlling); it doesn't have to
I understand, but are you sure that the computer controls the accelaration of
the squares? I think the computer controles some of the modifications in the group of sqares.
Rick, I found the program for some of your demoes. But I didnt understand
the word ASAP.