eetu pikkarainen 2016-11-21
This begs some questions:
Is it here, the problem which Boris protests?
Input and input quantity are something happening outside the organism, in the boundaries of environment, isn’t it?
Instead perception takes place inside organism, in the input function and after it in perception signal?
What we can control is perception inside the organism - the perception signal in comparator (if I at the moment have understood right the concept of control)?
What we cannot control but only affect
are the events in environment?
BTW. As non English speaker I have wondered why the name of PCT is Peceptual Control Theory and not Perception Control Theory? For me the previous one means something like Control with the help or mediation of Perception and the latter would mean Control
of Perception. At least this is what I get when I make a literal translation to Finnish.
(I still do not know how I should translate the name to Finnish.)
Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols email@example.com
Lähetetty: 21. marraskuuta 2016 12:18
Aihe: Input Control Theory (was RE: TCV and Collective Control …)
From Fred Nickols (2016.11.21.0515 ET)]
Regarding the notion of “input control theory” some doggerel rhyme I published way back in the mid-1970s might be of interest.
Here are the opening lines:
Things coming in are routed about, molded and shaped on their way out.
Outputs are exchanged for things coming in; and the cycle starts all over again.
Systems are loops, they’re cycles of events. Focusing on “parts” doesn’t make much sense.
If you would make use of the systems view, here’s some well-meant advice from me to you:
When observing systems from the outside, trace their outputs back to their input side,
for what systems “do,” or so I believe,**isact to control the things they receive.
The full poem can be found at
From: Richard Marken [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control …
[From Rick Marken (2016.11.20.0940)]
Rupert Young (2016.11.19 18.30)–
(Rick Marken (2016.11.18.1020)]
RM: …But I just wanted to let you know that I liked this post of your; your ideas on perception are, as Bill said somewhere in B:CP “comfortably compatible” with mine.
RY: Thanks. I am beginning to think we have a problem with the term “perception”
RM: I agree. I would rather that Powers’ control theory had been called “input control theory” (IPT) but it’s too late now, I guess. The problem with calling it perceptual control theory is that many lay people think of “perception” as
meaning something like “opinion”. So many people come to PCT thinking it justifies what is basically a postmodernist approach to understanding the world – an approach that treats ideas as just a matter of opinion and my opinion is just as good as yours. The
irony is that this has led many people who are basically anti-science to become fervent supporters of the science that Bill was trying to create. Perhaps everything would have worked out better if Bill had titled his book “Behavior:The Control of Input”. But
RM: When I first saw Bill’s book, on that fateful day in 1974 while roaming through the library at UCSB, I found the title shocking for the reason I believe Bill intended it to be shocking: because it was describing behavior in the exact
opposite way that psychologists thought of it. I was trained to see behavior as controlled (caused, really) by input; and here was a book that said appeared to be saying the opposite. So I was interested in the book to see how the author could justify such
an apparently absurd statement. It wasn’t the word “perception” that caught my attention – that part of the title was uncontroversial to me. There wasn’t a psychologist I know who wouldn’t have said that it is the perception of environment that is the input
that causes behavior. What was controversial about the title of Powers’ book is that it was saying that input was what was controlled rather than what was doing the controlling.
RM: So if I had the power to do it, I would change the name of Powers’ theory from PCT to ICT (and, in the mean time, also change the result of the recent election to that of the person who won the popular vote). I think I will be equally
successful at both;-)
which has representational connotations, whereas what we, more generally, mean is internal neural signals that, ultimately, contribute to the organism maintaining energy levels such that it lives long enough to reproduce.
We must rename the theory from PCT to INSTUCTTOMELSTILLETRCT!
RM: And, again, I should point out that this is not just a “philosophical” disagreement (between representationalists and constructivists). The difference could have real consequences for one’s ability to do PCT science, particularly the
Test for the Controlled Variable. A representationalist would be oriented toward finding out whether a person is controlling “correctly” – whether the perception is a correct representation of some entity in the world (this is the approach of conventional
psychology). A constructivist would be oriented toward finding out what “constructed” as aspect of physical reality (as we know it via physics and chemistry) is being controlled (this is the approach of PCT).
Yes, I recall, at University, being unconvinced with the main approach to computer vision. David Marr’s approach of a one-way processing pipeline in order to extract the information from static images. I preferred Gibson’s dynamic approach, but I guess his
is still one-way processing.
Richard S. Marken
“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers