A Modest Proposal

Bruce_Gregory8 · January 31, 1999, 8:06pm

[From Bruce Gregory (990131.1505 EST)]

Here is an approach that worked well in our class. Everyone is free to
believe whatever they like. If they chose to share a belief with others,
however, they are obligated to provide the evidence that led them to the
belief. This rule has quite interesting effects on arguments. People
discover that much of what they believe is simply what some authority told
them.

Bruce Gregory

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 1, 1999, 5:22am

[From Kenny Kitzke (990201.0015 EST)]

You mean that if a person believed they evolved from lower life forms and
talked about evolution on this forum, they would have to say where they got
such an idea other than from reading Darwin's theory? 8=)

I like it...but, it will take us off the subject of the PCT hypothesis of
behavior. It tells us nothing about the morality of beliefs. Thanks for a
respectful post.

Kenny

Martin_Taylor · February 1, 1999, 6:57am

[Martin Taylor 990201 01:56]

[From Kenny Kitzke (990201.0015 EST)]

You mean that if a person believed they evolved from lower life forms ...

Could you define "lower?" You mentioned in a message a while back something
about humans being "higher" than other life forms. I didn't understand
it then, and I don't now. What life form is "lower" than what other? And
according to what criterion?

Martin

Bill_Powers1 · February 1, 1999, 1:20pm

[From Bill Powers (990201.0618 MST)]

Martin Taylor 990201 01:56 --

What life form is "lower" than what other? And
according to what criterion?

I would rank life-forms in terms of their ability to control their
environments. Human beings are by far the most skillful in this regard.

Best,

Bill P.

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 2, 1999, 4:52pm

[From Kenny Kitzke 990202.1200EST]

While this happens to be a Biblical testament, I think most scientists
accept that the brain and nervous system of a human is more highly
developed than a monkey or sheep or worm. I think both Bill and Rick have
indicated the same as the Bible proclaims, which may bother them at least a
little bit.

I think this is an example of coming to the same belief from a different
system concept? Neat.

BTW, even I would agree that no ape could possibly do for the USA what
President Clinton has done. 8=)

Respectfully,

Kenny

Martin_Taylor · February 2, 1999, 11:00pm

[Martin Taylor 990202 17:32]

[From Kenny Kitzke 990202.1200EST]

<Martin Taylor 990201 01:56>

<Could you define "lower?" You mentioned in a message a while back
something
about humans being "higher" than other life forms. I didn't understand
it then, and I don't now. What life form is "lower" than what other? And
according to what criterion?>

While this happens to be a Biblical testament, I think most scientists
accept that the brain and nervous system of a human is more highly
developed than a monkey or sheep or worm.

More complex, I buy, because this is just a statement about numbers of
neurons and numbers of connections. I might even buy "more highly
developed" if pushed, but hesitantly, because the word "highly" seems
to be gratuitous. "More developed" would say the same, without the
connotation of "better." But even if the brain and nervous system of
a human are granted to be more highly developed than those of a monkey,
sheep or worm, to use that as a reason for saying that humans are
"higher" life forms than the others seems to be based only on the use
of the same word for two different meanings, one to do with structural
complexity, the other to do with something like "worthiness" or "moral
value" or some vague concept like that.

Bill proposed that "higher" might mean "better at controlling perceptions."
I would buy that, but as I wrote yesterday, the evidence there suggests
that humans are probably much worse at that than are many other species.

If the reference perception is to be able to perceive humans as the
highest form of life, one has to seek a criterion on which humans come
out with the top value. Possibly the structural complexity notion could
be developed to say that "highest" means "controlling the widest range of
perceptual signals" or "controlling the most levels of perception." This
last might even allow one to tie in the idea of "highest" with some kind
of "morality" criterion, if it were to be determined that "morality"
refers to controlled perceptions at the highest level of the hierarchy
in humans, and that highest level were found not to exist in any other
species.

I think both Bill and Rick have
indicated the same as the Bible proclaims, which may bother them at least a
little bit.

Why should it bother them, even with a smiley? You don't have to agree
with everything a book says to agree with some things it says, do you?
Most of what Christ said is repeated in Marx, isn't it? Does that bother
you, or any Christian?

I think this is an example of coming to the same belief from a different
system concept? Neat.

I think it is an example of a belief that it is pleasant for a human to
hold. To perceive oneself as an example of the best thing in creation is
very nice. To seek arguments why this is so is to control for this
perceptual signal to have that value. To believe a book that says it is
so is to shield the perception from possible disturbances--same effect;
the "good" value of the perception is sustained. It doesn't seem to have
anything to do with control of a system level perception, so far as I can
see.

I'm not, or not at high gain, controlling for perceiving myself as "higher"
than a monkey, a sheep, or a worm. I'm just different from them, and
trying to co-exist with them in a way that allows us all to control
most of our perceptions adequately.

···

--------------------------------

BTW, even I would agree that no ape could possibly do for the USA what
President Clinton has done. 8=)

I take it you mean build prosperity, reduce crime rates, and be thought
to be doing the right thing by a higher proportion of the US public
than any other President so late in his term? I don't think an ape could
have done that. And had he managed to build the sane health-care system
he tried for, his performance would be even less like whatever an ape
could have accomplished. But if he failed at that, at least he tried,
and he succeeeded at many other things that helped the USA. There aren't
many Presidents in history that can say that. (As a non-US citizen, I
can only envy your good luck in having had him, and your ill luck in having
the harpies that have pursued him since day one of his term, or before).

I do appreciate your reversal here, contrasting with your previous
pronouncements against this good President. It's nice to see that there
are people on the CSGnet who can change their positions so pleasantly.

Thank you--and I imagine Rick will join me in these thanks.

Martin

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 3, 1999, 12:10am

[From Kenny Kitzke 990202.1900EST]

BTW, did you take the conservative Christian test of Rick's? Who would
score lower, you or Rick? Would the lower be higher in complexity? Just
kidding.

If human brains and nervous systems are:
* more complex
* more developed
* able to have more levels of perception
than those of any other species of life, then I cannot see why you would
become queasy about calling humans a higher life form.

For it is these differences that allow a human to do arithmatic and no
other animal to count, divide, solve an equation, etc., But, if being
"different" is the most definitive statement you can live with regarding
humans and animals, so be it. I perceive humans as higher life forms than
ground hogs (it was Groundhog Day here in Pennsylvania and Phil predicted
an early spring!) who has no apparent cognition of what these foolish men
are doing to him.

I do not like Bill's definition either. It may be generally true but is
not true all the time. When a hungry human is placed naked in a cage with
a hungry lion, I suspect the lion will control the environment better. Of
course, give the human a high power rifle and the bear will lose his
desired perception every time, and by Bill's definition the bear be a lower
life-form than the human.

Just speculation but perhaps because what they have spent their life
discovering was already available to Bible readers. That could be easily
denied if it is important.

Karl Marx? I have never read much about him. I never PCT wanted to. I
have a book with the 100 most influential people listed. Karl is #11.
Jesus is #3 I'm moving slowly down the list. Actually, Bill Clinton,
will be on this list if he can edge past #100: Niels Bohr. Who knows?

<I'm not, or not at high gain, controlling for perceiving myself as
"higher"
than a monkey, a sheep, or a worm. I'm just different from them, and
trying to co-exist with them in a way that allows us all to control
most of our perceptions adequately.>

I believe you, Martin. So, if we treat you like a worm on this forum and
call you Mr. Worm, you won't resist and retaliate. Right?

I can admit that President Clinton has done some positive things for
America, if you can admit that he has done some despicable things as well.

<(As a non-US citizen, I can only envy your good luck in having had him,
and your ill luck in having the harpies that have pursued him since day one
of his term, or before).>

Please know that as a US citizen, I will support sending Mr. Bill Clinton
to England (or whatever country you are from) to reduce your perception of
envy. Its not good for your higher level control to envy.

Kenny

R_Marken · February 3, 1999, 1:04am

[From Rick Marken (990202.1700)]

Kenny Kitzke (990202.1900EST) --

I can admit that President Clinton has done some positive things
for America, if you can admit that he has done some despicable
things as well.

Actually, I can't think of anything Clinton has done that I would
call "despicable". Signing the "welfare reform" bill might qualify;
but "despicable"? Nah. "Expedient", perhaps.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

Martin_Taylor · February 3, 1999, 1:34am

[Martin Taylor 990202 20:02]

[From Kenny Kitzke 990202.1900EST]

<I'm not, or not at high gain, controlling for perceiving myself as
"higher"
than a monkey, a sheep, or a worm. I'm just different from them, and
trying to co-exist with them in a way that allows us all to control
most of our perceptions adequately.>

I believe you, Martin. So, if we treat you like a worm on this forum and
call you Mr. Worm, you won't resist and retaliate. Right?

I'm not sure I understand the logic. If I get you right, you would be
just as happy eating a bowl of mud as a bowl of ice cream, because mud
and ice cream are different. Is that it? If two things are different
you should treat them the same? Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it?

Anyway, why should I resist or retaliate, whatever you write on the net?
More than ordinarily, "Resistance is futile." I might try to correct
what I perceive as mistakes, but perhaps not. Sometimes correction works,
sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes it results in seeing my own mistakes.
Usually it has no effect whatsoever.

···

-----------------

I can admit that President Clinton has done some positive things for
America, if you can admit that he has done some despicable things as well.

I thought you had changed your opinion, given your comment in your
previous message, but I'm sorry to find you haven't, and that I had
misinterpreted you.

What's to admit? If you despise his sex addiction, and what he does as a
consequence, then he has done some despicable things. If you don't, he
hasn't. It's a value judgment, like "higher" when applied to life forms.

You have to have some kind of criterion if you are to make a value
judgment. It's probably better if you can make that criterion explicit.
You have made your criterion explicit: the Bible says "x". Not everyone
uses that criterion. Some people seek other criteria, some have already
found criteria that satisfy them. I'm inclined to go along with Rick:
"Better" is what allows more people to control more perceptions more
accurately (which is three criteria rolled into one, and sometimes two
of the three may conflict).

From my criteria, Mr. Clinton accepted offers from a tempting young girl,

a matter of little consequence, and tried to keep it from his wife (maybe
he didn't actually try to keep it from her--we have no evidence on that
either way, and she seems pretty open-minded about his prior behaviour).
As for keeping it from the country, that kind of thing is none of anyone
else's business outside the family, and anyone outside the family who
enquires about it is guilty of impoliteness at a minimum, and of gross
indecency if the inquiry is persistent. Rick produced a very good analogy
with the "rubber band" experiment, where one person can use another's
strongly controlled perception to manoeuvre the other into a situation
where they damage themselves. It's vicious, nasty, and uncivilized. But
that's according to _my_ criteria.

No, I don't despise Mr. Clinton. I think he has flaws. Gentle people always
do. Perhaps he compromises too much with his opposition. He's human, not
perfect, and I admire him much more now than I did before he was elected.
He has put up with an incredibly vicious and sustained assault on his
ability to perform the office of President, while actually managing
not to be paralysed by it. That's remarkable.

Please know that as a US citizen, I will support sending Mr. Bill Clinton
to England (or whatever country you are from) to reduce your perception of
envy. Its not good for your higher level control to envy.

Canada, actually. But why do you say envy is not good for a higher-level
control system? It's probably occasioned by an error in the higher-level
control system, and if there isn't a conflict with other same-level
control systems, the error is likely to result in action to reduce it.
What's not good about that? And if there is a conflict with another same-
level control system, reorganization is quite likely to happen, resulting
in better overall control. That's not bad, either.

However, I can't say I envy you having an elected King in place of one who
is outside of politics. I just think you have a good man in the job, whereas
at present we do not have high-level politicians of equal quality.

Martin

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 3, 1999, 4:42pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990202.1200EST)]

<Actually, I can't think of anything Clinton has done that I would
call "despicable"."

Despicable means deserving of scorn or contempt. Even Democratic House and
Senate members have used a litany of more harsh words to describe their
perception of what Mr. Bill did to a young woman employee half his age.

I can only conclude that your moral belief reference level for adultery in
the people's house is far lower than these pablum puking liberals. 8=)

I would not have time to list all his actions that I find despicable. But,
renting the Lincoln bed room to political contributors or giving military
secrets to China in return for campaign funds would qualify for my
despicable guage.

Kenny

R_Marken · February 3, 1999, 5:59pm

[From Rick Marken (990203.1100)]

Kenny Kitzke (990202.1200EST)--

Despicable means deserving of scorn or contempt.

How do you determine whether or not someone's behavior is
"deserving of scorn or contempt" except by comparing a perception
of that person's behavior to your own reference for what that
behavior should be. This means that we are likely to judge the
_same_ behavior very differently -- not necessarily because we
_perceive_ it differently but because we have different references
for that behavior.

Even Democratic House and Senate members have used a litany of
more harsh words to describe their perception of what Mr. Bill
did to a young woman employee half his age.

Yes. And I find their politically motivated indignation
despicable. The charges against Clinton are ridiculous; the
case should have been dropped by the House immediately; it's
clear to everyone with an IQ over 20 that this is a purely
partisan attack on the President. As soon as the Starr report
was submitted the House should have started action against the
independent counsel for filing a nuisance lawsuit.

I can only conclude that your moral belief reference level
for adultery in the people's house is far lower than these
pablum puking liberals. 8=)

Adultery, as Martin Taylor (990202 20:02) noted, is no one's
business but the adulterer's and the adulteree's. My own reference
for other people's adultery varies depending on the circumstance.
I can even imagine the reference for my own adultery varying with
circumstance. If Linda said I had to have sex with Claudia
Schiffer or she would leave me I suppose I'd probably change
my adultery reference -- because Linda is twice the babe Claudia
is;-)

Making another person's adultery the basis of public judgement
is (to quote Martin's very civilized post) "vicious, nasty, and
uncivilized". I would only add that it's also "despicable" (only
from the point of view of my reference signals, of course)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

Bruce_Gregory · February 3, 1999, 6:23pm

[From Bruce Gregory (990203.1320 EST)]

Kenny Kitzke (990202.1200 EST)

I would not have time to list all his actions that I find
despicable. But,
renting the Lincoln bed room
to political contributors

I agree. He should be willing to rent the Lincoln bedroom to anyone who
has the money regardless of political affiliation.

or
giving military
secrets to China in return for campaign funds would qualify for my
despicable gauge.

I know. And so _little_ money too. If businessmen realized how cheaply
they could buy political influence, where would the national parties be?
Nobody should be able to buy military secrets for less the $20
million--make that $50 million. I'm willing to sell integrity, but not
that cheaply. How much has United Fruit had to come up with to get us
into a trade war with Europe? A lot, I hope.

Bruce Gregory

Bill_Powers1 · February 3, 1999, 7:46pm

[From Bill Powers (990203.1234 MST)]

Kenny Kitzke (990202.1200EST)--

Senate members have used a litany of more harsh words to describe their
perception of what Mr. Bill did to a young woman employee half his age.

It's peculiar that none of the Republicans has chastized Ms. Lewinski for
using her youth and free-swinging sexual attitudes to tempt a married man
who obviously has a problem with resisting sexual adventures when they're
offered. The reaction against Clinton's affair with Lewinski is mostly
hokum and is based on a long-standing irrational hatred of the man, which
existed long before anyone knew about Monica and others. Note that the
Republicans who have had their own extramarital affairs exposed refer to
them as "indiscretions," meaning that they were not descreet enough, not
that they committed a moral crime. Their mistake, evidently, was to get
caught. Not very high moral ground on which to stand while you're dancing
up and down with phoney public indignation.

I can only conclude that your moral belief reference level for adultery in
the people's house is far lower than these pablum puking liberals. 8=)

What's the opposite of a pablum puking liberal? A pablum puking stingy?
Are non-pablum-puking liberals OK by you?

Best,

Bill P>

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 3, 1999, 9:25pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990203.1320 EST)]

Then, money bags, you should be in for quite a treat. Sign up quick. You
have 9 days (I hope) to 23 months (and counting) to sleep in the bed of a
President that had character.

<I'm willing to sell integrity, but not that cheaply.>

Once a principled president gets back in power (except for All Gore),
visits to the White House won't be For Sale anymore. For men of principle
know that the most cherished things in life cannot be bought at any price.

People truly have gone "bannanas." Know a good psychologist to send to Mr.
Bill's Commerce Secretary and Trade Deputy? Where is Micky Cantor when the
country needs him?

Protectionism is associated with big government and unions. If you want
minimum wages, you better be for trade protectionism too. They go hand in
hand. More government, more colusion, more bribes and we can once again
grow our bannanas in peace at a profit.

Kenny

P.S. Just trying to humor your post, Bruce.

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 3, 1999, 9:51pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990203.1100)]

Man. It is so nice when we agree. Our reference moral beliefs are quite
different (this is in defference to Martin). That is why we see the
character of our dear president so differently.

<Yes. And I find their politically motivated indignation despicable.>

Your dislike of the Republicans *and* Democrats is noted. A couple of
possible actions you could take to deal with it are not to wail to change
them but to:

* move to Canada and see if it might be better there (forget Martin's bias)
* quit reading about politics and concentrate on PCT
* run for office yourself and change the world (if Barbara Boxer is all you
have to match, you'll be Senator Marken in no time).

<Adultery, as Martin Taylor (990202 20:02) noted, is no one's
business but the adulterer's and the adulteree's.>

This is sick. This is stupid. I hope you are joking? What happened to
the respect in your wimpy, relative moral belief references for their
spouses?

I would not know nor want to know. But, why would Claudia want to have sex
(do you mean intercourse or just any kinky kind of sex?) with you?

Well, that isn't what my one-man mom taught me.

Me and my mom have different references than you. There's that PCT again.
It's everywhere. Even in derelicts.

I am feeling like it is time to get Mr. Bill's antics behind us and move
on.

kenny

R_Marken · February 3, 1999, 9:52pm

[From Rick Marken (990203.1450)]

Me:

Adultery, as Martin Taylor (990202 20:02) noted, is no one's
business but the adulterer's and the adulteree's.

Kenny Kitzke (990203.1100)--

This is sick. This is stupid.

Strong words for a person who doesn't judge others;-)

What happened to the respect in your wimpy, relative moral belief
references for their spouses?

The respect comes from recognizing that you can't tell, just
by looking at their behavior, what people are controlling for.
The respect comes from recognizing that other people may have
references for and means of controlling perceptions that differ
from yours. It comes from recognizing that some married people
may not demand sexual fidelity. It comes from recognizing that
even those who do demand sexual fidelity might not be controlling
for it with as high a gain as you do. It comes from respecting
the fact that each individual has to figure out how to control
their own perceptions as best as they can; and that if they do
this without interfering with your ability to control then it's
none of your moralistic little business.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 3, 1999, 10:11pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990203.1700 EST)]

<It's peculiar that none of the Republicans has chastized Ms. Lewinski for
using her youth and free-swinging sexual attitudes to tempt a married man
who obviously has a problem with resisting sexual adventures when they're
offered.>

Is this what she did? BTW, you make a fair point if true. And, if true, I
for one find her actions despicable too. The only difference is that
Monica is not the President.

Tramps are a dime a dozen. Men of charater know how to deal with that.
Obviously, our President does not.

Well, at least one Republican gave up his office that was two heartbeats
away from the Presidency. What does such behavior suggest to you the
variable that he was controlling?

Isn't this exactly what Bill Clinton did and did and did and did and did
and did? What Republicans can you cite with a record like Clinton's?
There has been none of such little character that I can name. Even John
Kennedy didn't have the gall to use the White House office, although he
probably used the White House bedroom.

<What's the opposite of a pablum puking liberal?>

Its something I've heard conservatives say about liberals that gets their
goat. Like the things Rick says about Republicans. I had no idea it would
get your goat. You usually stay above the frey, to your credit.

If you are one Bill, then yes.

Regards,

Kenny

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 4, 1999, 7:03pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990204.1200EST)]

Kenny Kitzke (990203.1100)--

This is sick. This is stupid.

It depends what "judge" means. Really.

Christians discern differences. They have preferences. I like vanila
better than chocolate. I like small government more that big government.
I do not like the idea that adultery is a matter only between the adulterer
and the adulteree. It is sick and stupid IMHO. Judging would be to say
those who believe that way are to be punished or condemned. I do not so
judge you or Martin for saying these things. Think them, say them all you
want.

Agree. That may be why many laws in society have an element of intent as
well as event in them.

Of course. It is a no-brainer for a PCTer.

Right again. But that does not mean that such a marriage isn't sick or
stupid from my viewpoint.

Absolutely. We each set our beliefs and gain differently, every human
being.

Right, Rick. Did I ever say it was my moralistic little business how often
you cheat on your wife with Claudia or any other tramp that makes herself
available to you?

Respectfully,

kenny

KENNETH_J_KITZKE1 · February 4, 1999, 7:03pm

[From Kenny Kitzke 990204,1200EST]

<I'm not, or not at high gain, controlling for perceiving myself as
"higher"
than a monkey, a sheep, or a worm. I'm just different from them, and trying
to co-exist with them in a way that allows us all to control most of our
perceptions adequately.>

Do you ever eat lamb? Do you ever fish with worms strung on your hook?

I control for perceiving myself higher than these animals. I have no
illusion of having to have to co-exist with them. If a worm shows up on my
enclosed back porch, I throw it outside (my wife squashs it because she
will not pick it up). I certainly would not do that to you Martin,
because I believe that you are made higher than that worm, even if you are
not too sure of that difference.

This is fine except I would say more precisely that I despise adultery,
lying, deceiving, finger wagging, obstructing justice, violating solemn
oaths taken in God's name. I despise what Bill may have done, not him as a
higher life form. For I too have or could easily fall into the same hole.

Yes, they are my moral beliefs. Mine come from the Bible. I assume you
have some. Where do yours come from? Every tried to list them kind of
like the Ten Commandments for Martin Tailor?

Have you seen the interview with Mrs. Clinton where she denied that Bill
had sex with Monica in the Whitehouse? It was a lie spread by the right
wing conspiracy. Ha! When asked if the President should be removed if
that was true, she said essentially yes. Perhaps these facts would
enlighten you about what Hillary knew and how situationally fluent her
references for morality are.

Would this be true for child abuse, sexual harrassment, homosexuality,
cruelty to animals or lying as well?

I say that because envy means "discontent and ill will over another's
advantage, possessions, etc. Do you claim that discontent and ill will is
good? Certainly, even a Canadian would not think that?

<It's probably occasioned by an error in the higher-level
control system, and if there isn't a conflict with other same-level
control systems, the error is likely to result in action to reduce it.
What's not good about that? And if there is a conflict with another same-
level control system, reorganization is quite likely to happen, resulting
in better overall control. That's not bad, either.>

By not envying, or coveting as the Bible calls it, the person never enters
into discontentment. No error is needed or desirable. No behavior to
reduce the envy, like making it with your best friends beautiful wife, is
required for you to control. Control is simply what living things do. PCT
and control are neither good nor bad in any moral sense.

Respectfully,

kenny

Bruce_Gregory4 · May 14, 2003, 6:58pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0514.1447)]

I think Bill's describtion of a hyper-linked PCT "site" is a great idea. I
have a modest proposal for the lexicon: I suggest that the word "theoretician"
be abolished from PCT-speak and be replaced by "theorist". Simplify, simplify,
simplify....