[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