VS: Beyond "Necessity and Sufficiency"

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-08-21 2]

Dear Boris,

I am wondering why do you say that “Behavior is not control and will never be.”

I suspect that you interpret the sentence “Behavior is control.” in a different way than I do.

I believe that you interpret it so that is means same as “Behavior is controlled.” Am I right?

I instead interpret that it means same as “Behavior is
part of control.” In this interpretation behavior is something which takes part in the control of perception. By behavior we can control our perceptions. Without behavior it would be difficult or impossible – depending on how we define that concept of

In natural language the copula “be” means often same as “belong to” or ”be part of” rather than strict equivalence. So the sentence “behavior is control” does not mean that behavior
and control were identical processes or phenomena.


Eetu Pikkarainen

PhD (Ed.), (Title of) Adjunct Prof., University Lecturer (in Education)

Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, Finland

Schools in Transition: Linking Past, Present, and Future in Educational Practice

Edited by Pauli Siljander, Kimmo Kontio and Eetu Pikkarainen


Lähettäjä: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Lähetetty: 20. elokuutata 2017 2:18
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: Beyond “Necessity and Sufficiency”

Hi Fred… I just choosed your statement from your analysis of Alex book…

FN : And, lest anyone doubt your main point, I chose this one: “Behavior is control.”

HB : Behavior is not control and will never be. I’d really like to see evidence for such a statement. Can you direct me to the place where Alex wrote this in his article ?



From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 5:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Beyond “Necessity and Sufficiency”


Many thanks for your paper. I read it with great interest. I make no claim as to fully understanding or appreciating your critique of neuroscience but I think I get the gist of it; namely, their own dominant mental
models blind them to the true nature of that which they seek to explain and thus, despite massive accumulations of data they end up failing to explain what they set out to explain. Or, as you put it, “we end up learning what we do to things rather than what
things do.” I am also reasonably sure Rick Marken will like this line: “to build a model that behaves is much more insightful than to make a model of behavior.”

I also appreciate your style of writing. Like me, I think you enjoy playing with words. Two examples caught my eye. “But, such lack of premise is nothing but a premise of lack.” And, “Pretense of absolute is an absolute

Toward the end, I really liked this one: “…the animal controls its perception of the environment more effectively than the world controls its behavior.”

And, lest anyone doubt your main point, I chose this one: “Behavior is control.”

If Bill Powers were still with us I am confident he would like and appreciate your paper.


Fred Nickols

From: Alex Gomez-Marin [mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 9:49 AM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Beyond “Necessity and Sufficiency”

My recently published book chapter: a critique of lineal causality in neuroscience, also offering some alternatives (including, but not only, PCT).