What is control?

[From Chris Cherpas (951110.1551 PT)]
[re: > Rick Marken (951110.1330)]
  [re: >> Chris Cherpas (951110.0921 PT)]

cc:

PCT-ers: what's the problem with saying that "behavior controls the
environment AND the environment controls behavior?"

RM:

Because there is no evidence of the latter;

cc:
Hmmm. I juice the shock grid with 10ma and the rat jumps.
You're saying the shock doesn't control the rat's behavior?
I think we must have definitions of the term "control"
that are different. How about if EVERY time I activate the shock
grid, the rat jumps -- this isn't evidence of the control
of jumping by shock for you? Is it that I'm not using the
CT-specific way of talking or would you say that if
I asked everybody on the street, "Is there any evidence that
I controlled the rat's behavior with the shock?" they'd say
"Nope. No evidence I can see?"

RM:

the idea that the inanimate
environment controls at all is called "animism".

cc:
I can get people to do lots of things by what I
do, and for them, I'm the environment. You don't
deny this, do you? Am I inanimate? Believe me,
I'm not from the spirit world either, although I
feel a little schizoid at times. But let's take
the inanimate case: are you really saying that
nature has no affect on your behavior? If it does,
I call that control too, so it seems we have different
conditions under which we invoke the term. I hope
that's the only problem here.

cc:

Do PCT-ers understand that radical behaviorism considers what happens
within the skin to be part of the functional environment controlling
behavior?

RM:

Yes.

cc:
So, disturbances can come from within (e.g., a toothache?)

cc:

do PCT-ers think that radical behaviorists see a stimulus as producing a
response and that's it for the causal stream?

RM:

No. We think they think that the response causes a new stimulus after the
stimulus has produced the response: a circular _sequence_ of cause and
effect. Real causal loops don't work that way; all the causal relationships
in the loop are happening at the same time; the stimulus is producing a
response WHILE the response is producing the stimulus.

cc:
OK. Then what happens? The stimulus produced WHILE the next
response is happening, WHILE the next stimulus is produced?
Does one behavior EVER follow another behavior in time? Are
our entire lifetime of behaviors occurring "simultaneously?"

In all sincerity, I think I may be able to understand you
but what happens to time?

Temporal animate,
cc

<[Bill Leach 951111.00:55 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[Chris Cherpas (951110.1551 PT)]

What Rick said still stands:

RM:

Because there is no evidence of the latter;

cc:
Hmmm. I juice the shock grid with 10ma and the rat jumps.
You're saying the shock doesn't control the rat's behavior?

"I juice the shock grid ..." You are a control system not an inanimate
object. You are able to overwhelm the control system with control system
action of your own (Bruce's example of shaving the rat's backs being a
great classic example).

I asked everybody on the street, "Is there any evidence that ...

"Can 200,000,000 people all be wrong?" Yep!

Power's points out what it takes to "control" a control system externally
so yes PCT admits that it can be done. Also, in a violent earth quake
(for example) it might be impossible to stand even though that is the
perception the being intends to control.

The environment with the exception of an active control system is not
controlling at all. It might be preventing me from controlling but it is
not doing so by "controlling me". By the "laws" of nature I can't fly
but I do.

One control system can overwhelm another and at least in a sense, control
the other system (and the overwhelming system is definately controlling).
The overwhelmed system will probably develop "new" ways to counter the
disturbance that the overwhelming system is creatings (if it lives).

So, disturbances can come from within (e.g., a toothache?)

Yes, but one does not have to cite something so dramatic. Two muscles
with any amount of "in phase" components in their output forces disturb
the perceptions to their alternates respective control loops. Such
disturbance are normally counteracted without knowledge of their source
(as are most disturbances -- indeed, a control loop can not detect the
source of ANY of its' disturbances.

OK. Then what happens? The stimulus produced WHILE the next ...

This one probably takes awhile to really understand. A control system
can ONLY control current perception, never a future perception.

In a control loop as a disturbance begins to alter an environmental
variable that is a sensed condition that results in a change in a
perception that is controlled, the comparitor for that controlled
perception changes the error signal output from the comparitor (reference
- perception = error). The changed error signal is applied to the output
functon which then _should_ act to counter the disturbance.

Your "WHILE ... WHILE" is handled by the "Program" level of perception
(hypothesis of HPCT) but again in each program "step" what is controlled
is current perception.

-bill