[From Bjoern Simonsen ( 990323: 2315 EU-time)]
[ Rick Marken (990319.0830)]
Bjoern Simonsen (990318.24:00 EU-time)--
For mee it is important to mark that behavior is the modification
of an object and no more.Why is that important to you? If you are already committed to
some ideas about how behavior works I think it's going to be
very hard for you to learn PCT.
Assuming for the moment that you do want to learn PCT, I will
just note that what you modify about an object when you control
it is some _variable aspect_ of that object. For example, my hand
is an object that I can "modify". But it is actually _variable
aspects_ of my hand that I modify: I can move my hand (vary its
position), make it clenched or open (vary its shape), keep it
steady or waving (vary its velocity), etc. Position, shape, and
velocity are _variables_. What we control (maintain in predetermined
states) are aspects of the world that can _vary_; we control
_variables_.
If we have an object, relatively abstracted from the surroudings and there is no modifications in the object, then there is nothing new to perceive.
If your hand is perfectly closed in a position, there is no modification in the arm and there is no change that is detectable externally ( you see the same arm in the same position)
If there is a modification in the arm, there is a chance that you will observe something that is detectable externally.
The modification in the arm is one thing. What you (or I) observe is the externally detectable part, and that is often another thing.
Assuming for the moment that you do want to learn PCT, I will
just note that what you modify about an object when you control
it is some _variable aspect_ of that object. For example, my hand
is an object that I can "modify". But it is actually _variable
aspects_ of my hand that I modify: I can move my hand (vary its
position), make it clenched or open (vary its shape), keep it
steady or waving (vary its velocity), etc. Position, shape, and
velocity are _variables_. What we control (maintain in predetermined
states) are aspects of the world that can _vary_; we control
_variables_.
I wont to learn PCT.
I agree. When I control an object (my arm), there will be a modification in the arm and
I will perceive what you call some _variable aspect_
I agree. Position, shape and velovity are _variables_,...... we controll what we perceive.
Does it bother you if I say we control _variables_? It may
be possible that we have a language problem here. Perhaps
what you mean by "object" is what we mean by "variable". There
is no question that, in English, the only appropriate way
to describe control is as the process of bringing _variables_
to predetermined states and protecting them from disturbance.
Do you, perhaps, mean "variable" when you say "object"?
No it doesnt bother me if you say we control _variables_. That is what we do.
I think you know what I mean with the word object if you read the top of the letter.
Let me write something more.
Around us there is a world we both are eager to study.
It consists of lots of objects relatively abstracted from the surroundiings. Let us name them x1, x2, x3,........xn. I perceive some of these objects, let us say x1, x2, x3,.... xm. Here is (m<n).
What I perceive is some of the variables the objects are consisting of.
When I control one of these objects ( the object may be my self or a part of me), I control some variables which I perceive.
Me:
How about "behavior is the control of perceptual variables"?
You:
No, I prefere
_Behavior is any active and purposeful modification of an object,
detectable externally_
Still I mean that control of perceptual variables is control of perceptual variables.
And still I have the opinion that behavior is the modification of the object.
I am sorry Rick if I disagree too much. I still wont to learn. Do you have the excess to give me negativ feedback?
Bjoern