[From Bruce Abbott (960124.1530)]
Rick Marken (960124.0830) --
Turning an incentive into the perception of an incentive doesn't eliminate
True; I didn't say it did.
I think this is a common misconception about PCT. Many people
seem to think that what is significant about PCT is its emphasis on the fact
that organisms deal with a world of experience (perception) rather than with
a world of reality.
I suppose you mean to include me in that category.
But the real significance of PCT is its emphasis on the
fact that organisms _control_ their experience rather than being controlled
Well, yes, they control _some_ of their experience, certainly not _all_ of
it. If they controlled all of it there would be no need to conduct the Test
now, would there?
Perceptions (like that of the "relationship between pecking and
incentive delivery") are not "made use of"; they are _controlled_.
Really? How do I control the perception that if I don't stop at red traffic
signals I may get into an accident? (I don't think that this perception is
controlled; it's just something I perceive.)
We've already covered how a perceptual signal called a "discriminative
stimulus" can be "used" to keep a logic-level control system at a reference
level of "true" most of the time, thus allowing maximum point-gain by
keeping a target properly positioned. I might describe this system as
"making use of" the SD to help control point acquisition rate. The SD is
not controlled, but the perception of its state can be used (by me, the
control system constructor) to improve control over point-gain rate. By the
same token, the pigeon might be able to "make use of" the relationships it
perceives to improve control over the grain hopper.
Do you really mean to assert that the only perception that affects the
performance of any control system is the perceived current state of the cv?