[From Rick Marken (2015.12.07.1810)]
···
Fred Nickols (2015.12.07.0805) –
Â
FN: I’m not overly concerned about the jarring effect; I’m more concerned that many people will be put off by it and turn away from PCT.
RM: I’m not that worried about it Fred. And I don’t think Tim is either. Our editor is a psychologist and he wasn’t put off of PCT by that phrase. Indeed, he seem to be rather enthusiastic about the book and, possibly, PCT as well. And Dag reviewed a pre-publication copy – and made some excellent suggestions, based on which we made several changes to the text – and he wasn’t put off by it. But, as I told Bruce Aboott, we would really appreciate hearing what you think of the book (and noting any other flaws you see in it) once it comes out (on Dec 22 in the US). And if you can write a nice review that would be great, too!Â
BestÂ
Rick
Â
Fred Nickols
Â
From: Bruce Abbott [mailto:bbabbott@frontier.com]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 7:26 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Talkin’ Control Blues (was Re: Review of Hommel’s Theory of Event Coding)
Â
From Bruce Abbott (2015.12.07.0725 EST, “a date that will live in infamy�)]
Â
Rick Marken (2015.12.06.1745) –
Â
Bruce Abbott (2015.12.06.1720 EST)–
Â
BA: You have forgotten the context in which I made that statement. The sentence to which I referred was this:
Â
We will show that your brain does this by specifying the goals to be achieved rather than the actions that should be used to achieve them.
Â
BA: The brain specifies not only the goals to be achieved but also the “actionsâ€? (means) with which to achieve them.Â
Â
RM: As I said before, according to PCT the brain causes (via the error signal) actions, it doesn’t specify them. Specification means “make this particular value happen”. The reference signal specifies the value of the perceptual signal; the error signal does not specify the value of output (action). Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Â
I’m not arguing about what PCT says. I’m saying that it’s not what the ordinary person will take your sentence to mean. I’m confident that you correct that misconception when you describe PCT in the book.
Â
BA: In an operant chamber, the rat that desires a food pellet learns that it can obtain a pellet by pressing the lever. “Pressing the lever� is an example of the commonsense meaning of the term “action.� The idea that we use such “actions� as pressing a lever to achieve our goals is certainly not “contrary to common sense.� What common sense overlooks is that pressing a lever is itself a controlled physical and perceptual event that to produce requires varied “actions� (in terms of how the lever is approached, what muscles are employed, etc.), because of different starting positions, muscle fatigue, and incidental disturbances.
Â
RM: Yes, I can see how saying that the brain specifies goals, not actions, could be jarring.
Â
The jarring comes from using a technical definition of the term “action� that doesn’t fit what most people mean by that term. To that I can now add “specify.� The rat’s brain, you are saying, doesn’t “specify� that pressing the lever will be the means by which it obtains the pellet.
Â
But it is, nevertheless, the correct way to describe how a control system operates – at all levels of control.
Â
Of course. But I assert that the rat’s brain does indeed specify lever-pressing, once it has formed the appropriate control system(s). Lever pressing involves a complex series of controlled perceptions each of which has a specified goal-state: lever approached, paw raised above the lever, paw contacting the lever, lever depressed. Lever-pressing is a controlled perception. What the rat’s brain does not do is specify the specific muscle contractions that will be required to bring about these goal-states.
Â
All control systems in the hierarchy specify what is to be perceived, not what is to be done. This language may be jarring or seem to violate common sense but it is a correct description of how control systems work and maybe it will peak interest in the book. Heck, the title is pretty jarring too, and intentionally so.
Â
Yes, I appreciated the double meaning!
Â
Look, Rick, I’m not criticizing the book. It’s just that that sentence in the Preface raises for me what I take to be in important issue for PCT, and that is how a reader can jump to incorrect conclusions about PCT based on statements that seem obviously false, given the way the reader will interpret their meaning. But maybe you are right, that the jarring effect will peak interest in the book.
Â
Bruce
Â
Â
Â
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble