But "seeking a mate" actually describes a very complex set of behaviors, and it just doesn't help to reframe that as "tracking the reference of 'having a mate' by outputting behaviors dependent on my distance (measured how?) from that state".

That's because, as I said, Richard completely handwaved the PCT explanation, in the same way as an evolution supporter would likely end up handwaving ideas like "inclusive genetic fitness".

To model mate searching in PCT, you would need to include several continuous variables related to mate selection, such as "how attractive am I" and "how often am I getting laid", that would be used to control other variables like for "minimum required desirability-of-partner". Lumping that all together into one variable as Richard suggested would be quite ludicrous. (But note, by the way, that there's mainstream evidence for the existence of such variables in humans and other animals.)

Keep in mind that controllers are hierarchical, so low-level behavior patterns are driven by higher level ones. So, the "minimum partner desirability" threshold would gate the program-level controller for mate attraction behaviors... which would include various levels to track of the potential mate's apparent response or interest, etc. You've got levels going all the way down here, implied by "hierarchical control", in the same way that a huge host of behaviors and characteristcs are covered by "inclusive genetic fitness".

Another data point for my claim is that you didn't seriously approach the challenge I gave you, to check if something known not to work, would be deemed by PCT to work. That would require you to give an example and show where it parts with PCT, which is a pretty simple task.

I did that, in precisely the comment you linked to as saying I didn't. Specifically, I pointed out that the exact set of definitions for e.g. "thinking hard" that wouldn't work in reality, precisely match the ones that PCT predicts would not work, and vice versa for the definitions that would not work.

If you're saying, you don't see how that's so from what I wrote and need more detail, that's fine. But to me, I did exactly as you requested, or the best I could given your undefined phrase "thinking hard".

Also you consider it to be a good thing when a theory requires you to separately solve the very problem it attacks, in order to use it.

You quoted me out of context; the rest of the comment goes on to explain that what I find useful is that PCT tells us what things to look for in order to solve the problem.

What I perhaps didn't explain very well is how those "things to look for" differ from what might otherwise be looked for. For example, PCT emphasizes integrated continuous variables rather than discrete events, e.g. "probability of receiving a shock within time period t". Our normal thinking about behavior emphasizes discrete goals and actions, while one of PCT's central ideas is that discrete goals and actions occur only to restore continuous variables to their reference ranges, in response to either environmental disruptions, or the passage of time (causing an integrated or "average" level to drop).