The New Science of PCT

[From Rick Marken (931221.0930)]

Osmo Eerola (931221.0810 GMT) --

Bill Powers said:

What you have to realize that in psychology and most other life
sciences, it has long been believed that perception controls
behavior: that is, that the environment acts on the nervous
system to cause behavior.

Osmo replies:

Old hat S-R system. Not totally wrong: when I see an angry dog
(stimulus) I react (response) by doing something.

This is the observation that led to the S-R explanation of behavior
(perception controls behavior). The observation (of the S-R relation-
ship) is correct; the explanation of this observation is totally wrong.
The conventional explanation is that perception of S causes R. In
fact, R ("doing something") is caused by a disturbance, S, (the angry
dog) to a controlled variable (possibly something like "distance from
danger"). The fact that the "perception controls behavior" explanation
is wrong is evidenced by the fact that the same type of S-R relation-
ship is seen even when the disturbance (S) is IMPERCEPTIBLE. Moreover,
PCT shows that the nature of the S-R relationship that is observed is
not the system (human) function that transforms perception of S into
R; it is the inverse of the ENVIRONMENTAL feedback function that
transforms R into a perception of the controlled variable (not S). In
PCT, this is called "the behavioral illusion"; it's existence spells
doom for the "old science" (which, unfortunately, is the current
science) of the behavior of living systems. The behavioral illusion
says that the current way of doing research in psychology tells you
nothing about the living systems under study. Data obtained in
behavioral experiments where an independent (stimulus) variable is
manipulated and the resulting dependent (response) variable is measured
tell us more about the experimental apparatus (the environmental
feedback function) than about the subjects. Current psychological
science is built on an illusion, the very illusion that you fell
for in your "angry dog" example.

In that context
we can say that perception controls behavior, but of course
we can analyse the case deeper, in CT terms.

You can say that "it looks like a stimulus causes a response"
but if you guess that this relationship exists because perception
of the stimulus causes the response you observe then will
be wrong -- completely and utterly wrong. PCT doesn't just let
you look at the situation more deeply, it let's you look at
it correctly. Control engineers (and cyberneticians like Weiner)
never noticed this fact about the behavior of living control
systems. They could have EASILY noticed it given their familiarity
with the behavior of artificial control systems but they didn't.
Thus, they missed the opportunity to start the NEW SCIENCE of
living control systems.

Me:

Why the hostility to PCT. Osmo? I'm really curious.

Osmo:

Am I? As I mentioned earlier "I was criticizing the classification
of PCT as a new science - not the PCT itself, or its
developers or appliers."

And we keep explaining that it is HOW PCT applies CT to behavior that
qualifies it as a NEW SCIENCE. Obviously, one can understand CT very
well and be completely clueless about how it applies to the behavior
of living systems (see my coments about early cyberneticians above).
Control theorists and cyberneticians SHOULD have made all the
observations about living control systems that Powers made,
but they didn't. Cybernetics, for example, SHOULD have been the NEW
SCIENCE of living control systems, but Weiner dropped the ball (in
the "Quantitative Analysis of Purposive Systems" paper in "Living
Control Systems" Powers explains exactly why Weiner and other
control engineers and cyberneticians failed to apply CT correctly;
basically, the reason is that they assumed that the psychologists
knew what they were talking about; bad mistake).

Me:

In fact, it's kind of a nice little theory --

Osmo:

Sounds much better than 'new science'

The way CT is applied to behavior makes it a new science. The re-
lationship between CT and PCT is probably much like the relationship
between Minkowski's geometries and general relativity. It is the
relationship between a tool and a product. You keep saying that,
becuase the tool is old, the product that is built on it is also
old. I say -- give it a rest. It's great that you understand the
tool. Now settle back, relax and try to understand what we are
doing with it.

Stupid men do not see their (gross) errors. I appreciate Bill's
patiency with me, but I do not admit that he has shown errors in
my thinking.

Well, look up there at the discussion of "perception controls behavior"
and note your first (gross) error.

Well, I think after this long discussion I have learned to understand
your way of applying CT. But be more cautios in calling something
a 'new science'.

I have explained the main reason why PCT is a NEW SCIENCE. It is
NOT a new science of engineering; it is not a new model of control;
PCT is a NEW SCIENCE of THE BEHAVIOR OF LIVING SYSTEMS. Throwing
caution to the wind, I say again, PCT is a NEW SCIENCE -- drastically
new. Completely new.

Now, would you like to explain why PCT is NOT a new science once
again? If you do, could you try something other than "PCT is just
CT". WE KNOW THAT! PCT is about LIVING systems -- especially humans.
If you explain why PCT is NOT a new science, please do so in terms
of what is NOT NEW about it as an explanation of the behavior of
living systems.

Thanks

Rick

From Osmo Eerola to Rick Marken (931221.0930)]

Bill Powers said:

> What you have to realize that in psychology and most other life
> sciences, it has long been believed that perception controls
> behavior: that is, that the environment acts on the nervous
> system to cause behavior.

Osmo replies:

>Old hat S-R system. Not totally wrong: when I see an angry dog
>(stimulus) I react (response) by doing something.

Rick:

This is the observation that led to the S-R explanation of behavior
(perception controls behavior). The observation (of the S-R relation-
ship) is correct; the explanation of this observation is totally wrong.
The conventional explanation is that perception of S causes R.

...>

Osmo:

>In that context
>we can say that perception controls behavior, but of course
>we can analyse the case deeper, in CT terms.

Rick:

You can say that "it looks like a stimulus causes a response"
but if you guess that this relationship exists because perception
of the stimulus causes the response you observe then will
be wrong -- completely and utterly wrong.

Me:
I am not arguing for simple S-R behaviorism! However, because of causality
we can say that there is in my angry dog example at first the (perception)
of the dog (stimulus) which switches my attention to this potential danger.
Let's suppose I am walking in a peacful park. My feedback control system (of survival)
is in a more or less "stable" state. Then I see the dog. The perception of the dog
causes that the control system of my survival is no more in the stable state.
If we name the dog as the stimulus and the change of the control system state as the
response, I still state this is a S-R relationship (step response in CT terms).

This MUST be true at least for the very first infinitesimal time moments when
the photons from the dog hit my retina, and due to the delay in the control system, this
effect has not yet spread all over the closed loop.
Thus, the stimulus causes my raction as defined above.
Am I wrong - completely and utterly??? If so, what caused my reaction?
Going deeper and further in time the CT explanation of course makes sense.
But, I dont think PCTers deny causality!

Rick:
... Control engineers (and cyberneticians like Weiner)

Osmo: Do you mean B. Weiner or maybe N.Wiener?

Rick:

> In fact, it's kind of a nice little theory --

Osmo:

>Sounds much better than 'new science'

The way CT is applied to behavior makes it a new science...
Now settle back, relax and try to understand what we are
doing with it.

Me: I will. For me it still is a nice little theory, but it is
nice that you fellows will make it a new science.

Now, would you like to explain why PCT is NOT a new science once
again? If you do, could you try something other than "PCT is just
CT". WE KNOW THAT!

Applying something existing to new areas does not necessarily make
the application a new science.

From Tom Bourbon [931227.1519]

From Osmo Eerola [27 Dec 1993 10:43:25] to Rick Marken (931221.0930)]

Osmo begam with a series of quotes, starting with Bill Powers, progressing
through a series of exchanges between Osmo and Rick Marken.

Bill Powers said:

> What you have to realize that in psychology and most other life
> sciences, it has long been believed that perception controls
> behavior: that is, that the environment acts on the nervous
> system to cause behavior.

Osmo replies:

>Old hat S-R system. Not totally wrong: when I see an angry dog
>(stimulus) I react (response) by doing something.

Rick:

This is the observation that led to the S-R explanation of behavior
(perception controls behavior). The observation (of the S-R relation-
ship) is correct; the explanation of this observation is totally wrong.
The conventional explanation is that perception of S causes R.

....>

Osmo:

>In that context
>we can say that perception controls behavior, but of course
>we can analyse the case deeper, in CT terms.

Rick:

You can say that "it looks like a stimulus causes a response"
but if you guess that this relationship exists because perception
of the stimulus causes the response you observe then will
be wrong -- completely and utterly wrong.

Osmo:
I am not arguing for simple S-R behaviorism! However, because of causality
we can say that there is in my angry dog example at first the (perception)
of the dog (stimulus) which switches my attention to this potential danger.

Tom, now:

"First" there is not the dog, or the perception of the dog. First, there is
the continuous stream of action--->perception (I am trying to show a
                            / \ |
                             >__________|

continuous cycle of effects), in which many perceptions are kept very close
to the states you specify. At some time, the perception of a dog intrudes
into this cycle as an uncontrolled perception, along with many other
uncontrolled perceptions. You identify the perception as one of an
angry dog, a perception that stands in some relationship to a specification
of yours that was not obvious in the absence of the perceived angry dog.

Any actions of yours from that time on are directed at eliminating the
error between your present perception and your specification for perception:
If you hunt for angry dogs and trap them, eliminate them, or subdue them,
then you will act to perceive the dog nearer; if your reference is to
"perceive no angry dog in my vicinity, but do no harm to an angry dog," then
you probably will get the blazes out of there. With regard to your actions,
the dog "causes" nothing.

(An incidental observation: Osmo, many of your sentences are too long for my
screen width. I wonder if anyone else has noticed that problem?)

Let's suppose I am walking in a peacful park. My feedback control system (of
survival) is in a more or less "stable" state. Then I see the dog.
The perception of the dog causes that the control system of my survival is
no more in the stable state.

Tom, now:
Agreed that, *if* you have a reference value (r) for perception of dog (pD)
*and if* r(for pD) = 0, *and if* the present value of pD <> 0, *then* (in a
manner of speaking) the present value of pD "causes" the discrepancy between
r(for pD) and the present value of pD, but it would be a rather arbitrary
and awkward manner of speaking. The role of the present value of pD is
imbedded in a set of many conditional relationships which does not allow pD
to play a unilateral causal role. Specifically, pD is one signal in a
hierarchical, "massively parallel" closed loop conrol system.

If we name the dog as the stimulus and the
change of the control system state as the response, I still state this is a
S-R relationship (step response in CT terms).

Tom, now:
Of course if you rename everything in the control loop you could say
that. But why would you want to do that? The terms "stimulus" and
"response" and the phrase "S-R relationship" are heavily burdened after a
century of abuse in the lineal-causal theories of behavioristic psychology
and their offshoots in the life sciences and cognitive science.

This MUST be true at least for the very first infinitesimal time moments
when the photons from the dog hit my retina, and due to the delay in the
control system, this effect has not yet spread all over the closed loop.

Tom, now:
Whether it will spread; and if so, where; and if so, to what end -- none of
that is "caused" by pD, your perception of the dog.

Thus, the stimulus causes my raction as defined above.
Am I wrong - completely and utterly??? If so, what caused my reaction?

Tom, now:
It wasn't "a reaction." It was action to maintain control of perception.
The "cause" is the loop. A better way to say that is: the loop is the
cause.

Going deeper and further in time the CT explanation of course makes sense.
But, I dont think PCTers deny causality!

Tom, now:
Certainly not! We just deny the adequacy of lineal causal models applied to
the behavior of living things.

Rick:

Now, would you like to explain why PCT is NOT a new science once
again? If you do, could you try something other than "PCT is just
CT". WE KNOW THAT!

Osmo:

Applying something existing to new areas does not necessarily make
the application a new science.

Tom, now:
Not necessarily, but in the present case, yes. Osmo, you said you had
looked at the psychological literature. You used the same kinds of terms
I use to characterize what you found there. You know very well that it
is *not* what we talk about in PCT. (You have said as much, more than once.)

As for applying something that already exists to new areas, you are right
of course. Control engineering is nothing new. Control engineering came
about as an attempt to create artefacts to duplicate the results of actions
by living systems, most often to duplicate purposive control behavior by
people. Millenia ago, Aristotle identified many of the conditions that
must necessarily be met if there is to be what we now call control. Hence,
control engineering is nothing new. As a control engineer, you can relax
and accept your status as a player in an obscure branch of philosophy. :wink:

Until later,

Tom