Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!sunybcs!bingvaxu!vu0112
From: vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Behavior and Perception
Message-ID: <969@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>
Date: 19 Mar 88 18:13:56 GMT
References: <626@dukempd.UUCP>
Reply-To: vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn)
Organization: SUNY Binghamton, NY
Lines: 58
Keywords: Behavior, Perception, Glasser

In article <626@dukempd.UUCP> crown@dukempd.UUCP (Rick Crownover) writes:
>
>	A few years back I read a book titles "Behavior as the Control of
>Perception" by an author named Powell or Powers.  

The author is William T.  Powers, title: _Behavior: the Control of
Perception_.  Powers is a somewhat-well-known Cybernetician/Systems
Scientist, and an "avante-garde" psychologist.  Another title of his is
_Control Theory, Constructivism, and Autopeisis_. 

>The book considered actions
>to be the result of incongruities between an inner paradigm and sensory
input.

He takes a "constructivist" (read: sollipsistic) philosophical position,
that we "create reality as we go along." This philosophy is very popular
with cognitivists and cyberneticians, but to my mind is anti-realistic. 
On this view, the interaction between input (perception, stimulus) and
existing mental structures is more important than that between input and
output (action, behavior).  That is, as we act as agents in the world,
we go about modifying our view of the world (our reality) to the extent
that the only purpose of our actions is to bring about states of
"happiness" for that very reality. 

Thus, when I kick the dog, I'm not doing so to hurt the dog, but rather
to produce a *perception* (i.e.  a hurt dog) that is desirable vis a vis
my current state of belief.  Should the kick fail to produce the desired
result, I don't change my action, but rather change my view of the world
(i.e.  the belief that kicking dogs produces hurt dog perceptions).  In
this way behavior controls perception. 

The truth is, of course (semi-:-)) that behavior and perception control
each other, in a "circular" (or "recursive") cybernetic (and for humans,
semantic) process.  However, Powers' observations are positive in that
they deomnstrate that there is an alternative view to the "standard"
psychology (behaviorist) paradigm of regarding organisms as inert
entities which simply "react" to stimulation (perception controlling
behavior).  If you're more interested, I could give you some quotations
from some articles of his I have. 

>I later heard that one of the 'therapy people': Glasser, had set out to ground
>his approach in neuroscience by demonstrating that Powells model accounted for
>the efficacy of his 'reality therapy.'  As far as I know, the 'book' he was
>writing has never appeared?

I've heard the name Glasser, but don't know anything more.  I'd be very
interested in more information.

What's a "therapy person"?

>	Rick Crownover				1-919-684-8279 
>	Duke University Dept. of Physics	crown@dukempd.uucp
>	Durham, N.C.      27706			mcnc!duke!dukempd!crown

O---------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Professional Cybernetician 
| Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, New York, but my opinions
| vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .