A modest proposal

[From Tim Carey (980810.0640)]

[From Rick Marken (980809.1245)]

die. But, as Tim Carey would quickly point out "How do we know
that?" How indeed. Just because someone dies doesn't mean that
that was _not_ a consummation "devoutly wished"; to die, to
sleep...Ah, but I get carried away.

I trust that you can see, now, the solution to death. We cannot
say that a person has died unless we know the intentions of both
the agent causing the death and the one who (purportedly) died.

But then sometimes we DO know the intetions of both. My father, for
example, suicided in April. He was both the agent causing the death and
indeed the one who died. He even left a note saying that this was his
intention. Now, as you so tactfully point out (and with such low gain), I
can see that he left the note for me because he knew (as you apparently
also know) what a twisted view of the world I have and how I would never be
able to understand his death unless I specifically "knew".

Well, now I do know so I'm at peace with myself .... how are you doing?

Regards,

Tim

[From Rick Marken (980809.1245)]

Since we have already used PCT to eliminate coercion from the
world, I want to hurridly jump in so that I can get credit for
using PCT to elimate "war", "torture" and "death".

Let's start with "war" because it's been a big problem for
quite some time. "War" is a conflict between groups (nations,
organizations and other "systems"). But PCT shows that there
can only be conflict between individuals, not groups. So there
really has never been a war and there never will be one.

But some may claim that the shooting and maining that goes on
between _individuals_ on the battlefield consitutes "war." But
this would still be a sophomoric blunder because an interaction
can only be defined in terms of the intentions of all parties
to the interaction.

In order for there to be a war, both of the individuals involved
must intend to shoot and main the other and both must intend
to not get shot and maimed. Clearly, there are many cases
where these conditions are not met. So "war" is ambiguous and
can be eliminated.

Now what a about "torture"? At first glance it might seem like
this is a tough one; we have interacting individuals (not groups)
and one of them is screaming (as though experiencing pain). But
when we remember to take the intentions of both parties to the
interaction into account we find that appearances can be deceiving.
It's perfectly possible that the screaming person intended to have
the electrodes placed across his genitalia and is screaming with
the joy of having achieved his goal; the smiling person had intended
to help the screaming person and is now happy that he has been of
service.

So our PCT analysis shows that the word "torture" is ambiguous
when we take the intentions of both parties into account; torture
really doesn't exist because often the person who appears to be
tortured is actually enjoying himself immensely.

Finally, "death". How, you may ask, can PCT possibly eliminate
the grim reaper? It turns out that this is the easiest one of
all. Again, it's just a matter of taking into account the
intentions of all parties to the interaction: the "deather"
(disease, famine, violence) and the "deathee". To say that
someone (the "deathee") died implies that he did not intend to
die. But, as Tim Carey would quickly point out "How do we know
that?" How indeed. Just because someone dies doesn't mean that
that was _not_ a consummation "devoutly wished"; to die, to
sleep...Ah, but I get carried away.

I trust that you can see, now, the solution to death. We cannot
say that a person has died unless we know the intentions of both
the agent causing the death and the one who (purportedly) died.
Did Dylan Thomas's dad really die when he "did not go gentle
into that good night". Of course not. Death might have intended
to call him but ol' Mr. Thomas (if he heeded his son) did not
intend to reply. So PCT shows that the term "death" is just
another ambiguous word like "coercion", "war" and "torture" (I
might also add "rape", "murder", "theft" and many more but that's
another lecture) that got coined before people understood that
you have to take the intentions of all parties to an interaction
into account in order to know what's actually going on.

Respectfully submitted

J. Swift

···

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

[From Rick Marken (980809.1430)]

Me:

But, as Tim Carey would quickly point out "How do we know that?"

Tim Carey (980810.0640) --

But then sometimes we DO know the intetions of both. My father,
for example, suicided in April. He was both the agent causing
the death and indeed the one who died...Now, as you so tactfully
point out (and with such low gain), I can see that he left the
note for me because he knew (as you apparently also know) what a
twisted view of the world I have and how I would never be able to
understand his death unless I specifically "knew".

Oops.

My reference to you in my post was meant to be a satire of
the fact that your replies to Bill's and my posts to you on
coercion were almost all _questions_, like "How do we know
that?" I completely forgot about the fact that your father
was a suicide; I am very sorry if you thought my comment was
a reference to that. The fact that I made this reference to
your habit of "answering with a question" in the context of
my satire about "eliminating death" was, believe me, an
unfortunate coincidence.

And I don't think you have a horrible world view. I think
you are defending a rather horrible perception of the
nature of coercion -- and I think you are doing this for
higher level reasons that are, themselves, not horrible at all.
But the result of your attitude is that it has become impossible
for us to communicate (using ordinary language) about coercion
(that's what my modest proposal was meant to satire).

So I'm sorry for my unintended blunder. But I sure wish you
could change the attitude that makes it impossible for us to
have a coherent, model-based and useful discussion of coercion.

Best

Rick

···

--

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

[From Tim Carey (980810.1310)]

[From Rick Marken (980809.1430)]

My reference to you in my post was meant to be a satire of
the fact that your replies to Bill's and my posts to you on
coercion were almost all _questions_, like "How do we know
that?"

Questions to which I still haven't received answers. What is it about the
questions that bothered you so much?

I completely forgot about the fact that your father

was a suicide; I am very sorry if you thought my comment was
a reference to that. The fact that I made this reference to
your habit of "answering with a question" in the context of
my satire about "eliminating death" was, believe me, an
unfortunate coincidence.

Apology accepted. This has been a wonderful lesson in American culture that
I've learned since I've been on CSG. Apparently, in the States you can say
whatever you like about people and as long as you apologise then
everything's hunky dory. A lovely lady I met while I was over there told me
that in the deep South it's even more extreme. As long as you start your
conversation with "Bless their heart" and finish with "Bless their heart"
than you can say whatever nasty thing you like in the middle and it's all
OK. Not that I'm saying that you were writing nasty things Rick, you've
already explained your position and I have no reason to doubt you.

Actually I even believe that this process of saying whatever you like and
then offering an apology is modelled to Americans from the highest levels
of American culture. By the way, did I just get the standard written
apology or did I get the super deluxe "broken voice, quivering bottom lip,
and tear rolling down the face" apology. :wink:

From my perspective, there's no need for an apology at all. This kind of

communication tends not to bother Australians (at least not the Australians
I mix with) in fact, most of the time we _joke_ in this manner. I wasn't
replying because I wanted an apology, I just replied to let you know I'd
got your message.

And I don't think you have a horrible world view. I think
you are defending a rather horrible perception of the
nature of coercion -- and I think you are doing this for
higher level reasons that are, themselves, not horrible at all.

At the risk of asking another question ... How do you know what my higher
level reasons are?

But the result of your attitude is that it has become impossible
for us to communicate (using ordinary language) about coercion
(that's what my modest proposal was meant to satire).

Just tell me what I have to do to help you overcome your communication
difficulties and I'll oblige.

So I'm sorry for my unintended blunder. But I sure wish you
could change the attitude that makes it impossible for us to
have a coherent, model-based and useful discussion of coercion.

Perhaps one of the biggest stumbling blocks to us having the kind of
discussion you mention above is that we have no common data to discuss.
Would it help do you think if we had some common data to model and discuss?

Regards,

Tim

From [ Marc Abrams (980810.1246

[From Tim Carey (980810.1310)]

Sorry to hear about your dad. My condolences to you and your family.

Perhaps one of the biggest stumbling blocks to us having the kind of
discussion you mention above is that we have no common data to

discuss.

Would it help do you think if we had some common data to model and

discuss?

Tim, you do have common data. The model. :slight_smile: Coercion is a _normal_
part of the control process. The capability _resides_ in _each_ of us.
Thats why its "part" of RTP. It's a function of control _not_ RTP.
It's "part" of _EVERYTHING_ :slight_smile: we do, just like PCT itself. The trick
is knowing what to look for, recognizing it and doing something about
it if you want to. You can't _eliminate_ it. And wherever _you_ go,
will go the capability of coercion or whatever name you want to give
it.

Marc

[From Tim Carey (980811.0630)]

>From [ Marc Abrams (980810.1246

Tim, you do have common data. The model.

Ahhh, so the data is the model and the model is the data. Yep, you guys
sure have an airtight argument. Absolutely nothing to argue about there.

Does the same standard apply to other kinds of interactions such as
"cooperation"?

Regards,

Tim

From [ Marc Abrams (980810.1735) ]

[From Tim Carey (980811.0630)]

>From [ Marc Abrams (980810.1246

Tim, you do have common data. The model.

Ahhh, so the data is the model and the model is the data. Yep, you

guys

sure have an airtight argument. Absolutely nothing to argue about

there.

You conveniently :slight_smile: left off the rest of my statement. I said that
"coercion" is a _normal_ part of the control process and hence it
_resides_ in _each_ of us, whether we "use" it or not. it is always
available as a means of correcting error. If it is inherit in how we
_might_ control then it is inherit in _everything_ we do. Am I going
to fast?, Is RTP something you do? If it is, it is subject to our
ability to use coercion when and where we feel we need it.

You want to quibble about _when_ coercion is _actually_ taking place?
Have fun. The model shows _what_ coercion ( or whatever it is you
would like to call it :slight_smile: ) _is_ . It does _not_ show _exactly_ when
in time the coercion begins and ends. Bruce Nevin has brought up some
reasonable points along the continuum and names for them ( like
extortion ) You can dissect it ad nauseum as far as the _boundries_ of
these things go. If that is an interest of yours, fine. If your model
shows different behavior then Rick's I'd love to see it.

Is the model airtight? No, but it sure as hell beats the non-model
your using.

Does the same standard apply to other kinds of interactions such as
"cooperation"?

Do you have a model of that to? Love to see that one.

Marc

i.kurtzer (980810.1715)

From [ Marc Abrams (980810.1735) ]

[From Tim Carey (980811.0630)]

From [ Marc Abrams (980810.1246

>>> Tim, you do have common data. The model.

>>Ahhh, so the data is the model and the model is the data. Yep, you
>>guys sure have an airtight argument. Absolutely nothing to argue about
>>there.

>You conveniently :slight_smile: left off the rest of my statement. I said that
>"coercion" is a _normal_ part of the control process and hence it
>_resides_ in _each_ of us, whether we "use" it or not. it is always
available as a means of correcting error.

How could coersion reside in us?

If it is inherit in how we
_might_ control then it is inherit in _everything_ we do. Am I going
to fast?

Yes, you have conflated observations and explanations. Saying the model is
the data and then clarifying that by saying the model is us does not clarify.

, Is RTP something you do? If it is, it is subject to our
ability to use coercion when and where we feel we need it.

this is not an answer to Tim's question "what data do you think we should
model" .

You want to quibble about _when_ coercion is _actually_ taking place?
Have fun. The model shows _what_ coercion ( or whatever it is you
would like to call it :slight_smile: ) _is_ .

How is determining whether coersion takes place a quibble? It coersion is not
taking place, then what are you modelling?

Is the model airtight? No, but it sure as hell beats the non-model
your using.

Just because there is a simulation does not give it any necessary theoretic
superiority. Rick has a simulation without data and he no says it encompasses
the entire continuum from threat, to blockage, to overwhelming force. All
that without data. Is such trumpetry better then simply saying let's look and
see?

i.

From [ Marc Abrams (980810.1851) ]

i.kurtzer (980810.1715)

How could coersion reside in us?

The same way the control loop does, and the same way that the control
process does. Coercion is simply _another_ way to reduce error.

If it is inherit in how we _might_ control then it is inherit in

_everything_ >>we do. Am I going to fast?

Yes, you have conflated observations and explanations. Saying the
model is the data and then clarifying that by saying the model is us

does >not clarify.

Really?, the model is a _representation_ of a control process. Do you
also think that protons and neutrons actually _orbit_ the nucleus of
a atom. Are you suggesting that this kind of _representation_ is
_not_ a _model_ of the atom?

What does a model of an atom look like to you?

I am suggesting that _this_ particular model is a _representation_ of
a process that is in _everyone_ How much perceiving do you do? What
_data_ do you use to _prove_ that there is such a thing as
perceptions. Is there air? You tell me.

, Is RTP something you do? If it is, it is subject to our
ability to use coercion when and where we feel we need it.

this is not an answer to Tim's question "what data do you think we

should

model" .

What data should we "model"? I always thought that data is something
a model _used_, Something you plugged into a model. What does the
structure of _your_ _representation_ look like? How exactly do you
"model" data?

You want to quibble about _when_ coercion is _actually_ taking

place?

Have fun. The model shows _what_ coercion ( or whatever it is you
would like to call it :slight_smile: ) _is_ .

How is determining whether coersion takes place a quibble? It

coersion >is not taking place, then what are you modelling?

_CONTROL_. Coercion is an _aspect_ and is derived from the process of
_CONTROL_. The question _for me_ is _what_ is coercion? How would I
know it? What does it look like? The model answers those questions.
You along with Tim seem to have a difficult time reading and
comprehending. I did _not_ say _whether_ coercion takes place or not
is a quibble. I said trying to define _when_ in time it happens is
quibbling.

Is the model airtight? No, but it sure as hell beats the non-model
your using.

Just because there is a simulation does not give it any necessary
theoretic superiority. Rick has a simulation without data and he no

says it >encompasses the entire continuum from threat, to blockage, to

overwhelming force. All that without data. Is such trumpetry better

then >simply saying let's look and see?

First, A simulation is looking at the dynamic behavior of a _MODELED_
system. If the model is not correct then the simulation is worthless.
You don't need data to _model_ this and then simulate. You need data
to plug into the model to _validate_ the model. Not the simulation.
What are you looking for? How would you know if you saw it?

Marc

In a message dated 98-08-10 19:40:26 EDT, you write:
i.kurtzer (980810.1900)

From [ Marc Abrams (980810.1851) ]

i.kurtzer (980810.1715)

>>How could coersion reside in us?

>The same way the control loop does, and the same way that the control
>process does.

You are smearing across many boundaries here. No control loop resides in us,
and no control process can reside anywhere.

Coercion is simply _another_ way to reduce error.

I assume as well that control processes underlie social interactions. But
this is quite far from saying the data to be modelled is the model, which was
Tim's complaint. If you continue to argue that that is meaningful then we
have no grounds.

>>If it is inherit in how we _might_ control then it is inherit in

_everything_ we do. Am I going to fast?

>>Yes, you have conflated observations and explanations. Saying the
>>model is the data and then clarifying that by saying the model is us
>>does not clarify.

Really?, the model is a _representation_ of a control process. Do you
also think that protons and neutrons actually _orbit_ the nucleus of
a atom. Are you suggesting that this kind of _representation_ is
_not_ a _model_ of the atom?

Saying the model is the data is nonsensical.

I am suggesting that _this_ particular model is a _representation_ of
a process that is in _everyone_ .

That is a bold conjecture. That conjecture needs to be tested not said that
it is a model and that is data enough.

>>, Is RTP something you do? If it is, it is subject to our
>> ability to use coercion when and where we feel we need it.

>this is not an answer to Tim's question "what data do you think we
>should model" .

What data should we "model"? I always thought that data is something
a model _used_, Something you plugged into a model. What does the
structure of _your_ _representation_ look like? How exactly do you
"model" data?

There is a data set. A generative model should produce the same data set
through an iterative rule-manipulating process. That is modelling.

>> You want to quibble about _when_ coercion is _actually_ taking
place?
>> Have fun. The model shows _what_ coercion ( or whatever it is you
>> would like to call it :slight_smile: ) _is_ .

>How is determining whether coersion takes place a quibble? It
coersion >is not taking place, then what are you modelling?

_CONTROL_.

we all assume that control underlies social interactions. But this is at the
principle level. It offers no rules that say how it is determined coersion is
taking place.

Coercion is an _aspect_ and is derived from the process of
_CONTROL_.

so we all assume, and i agree.

The question _for me_ is _what_ is coercion? How would I
know it? What does it look like?

same with me.

The model answers those questions.

No it does not.

You along with Tim seem to have a difficult time reading and
comprehending.

i do not deserve to be insulted. please do not apologize, just stop it.

I did _not_ say _whether_ coercion takes place or not
is a quibble.

And whether coersion takes place or not is not answered by the simulation.

i.

From [ Marc Abrams (980810.2042) ]
i.kurtzer (980810.1715)

You are smearing across many boundaries here. No control loop

resides >in us, and no control process can reside anywhere.

How do you represent the control process? What does it look like to
you? Have you got data on what the "comparitive function" looks like
yet? if not how do you know it exists? What data provides that proof?

Coercion is simply _another_ way to reduce error.

I assume as well that control processes underlie social interactions.

But

this is quite far from saying the data to be modelled is the model,

which >was Tim's complaint. If you continue to argue that that is
meaningful then >we have no grounds.

No _data_ is not modeled. Data is _used_ _in_ models to validate them.
The structure of the model ( i.e. how model objects/structure
_interact_ ) determines the "behavior" of the system. The coercion
model was used to show the _interactions_ of the control loop. _Any_
resonable data could be plugged in to show this. If you want to argue
that the model _structure_ is incorrect, that is a _different_ story.
Again, What does _your_ representation look like.

>>If it is inherit in how we _might_ control then it is inherit in

_everything_ we do. Am I going to fast?

>>Yes, you have conflated observations and explanations. Saying the
>>model is the data and then clarifying that by saying the model is

us

>>does not clarify.

What have I conflated? The model is _NOT_ the data. The model exists
in some form ) inside of us. The model is used to _represent_ the
control process. What does _your_ representation of the control
process look like?

Saying the model is the data is nonsensical.

One more time :-), I am saying the model does _NOT_ represent _any_
_particular_ _real_ data set. It _represents_ the components of the
control process and _how_ they interact. What is of concern and
interest in _this_ model ( i.e. coercion) is to see if the model
_structure_ produces the theorized behavior. It does.

I am suggesting that _this_ particular model is a _representation_

of

a process that is in _everyone_ .

That is a bold conjecture. That conjecture needs to be tested not

said >that it is a model and that is data enough.

My conjecture is that this model structure _produces_ certain kinds of
behavior. Coercion being _one_ of those things. What is stopping you
from testing it. I don't disagree with that. it's _always_ nice to
validate models. Do you have something specific in mind?

Me:

>>, Is RTP something you do? If it is, it is subject to our
>> ability to use coercion when and where we feel we need it.

Isaac:

>this is not an answer to Tim's question "what data do you think we
>should model" .

Me:
Tim can speak for himself.
You seem to be the research expert. You tell me. I think showing the
dynamics is sufficent to show that coercion as a phenomenon exists.

There is a data set. A generative model should produce the same data
set through an iterative rule-manipulating process. That is

modelling.

No, that is simulating. A model is an representation of the
problem/system/ process space ) You can _model_ something with having
an "iterative rule-manipulating process" ( funny, but that reminds me
of simulation :slight_smile: )One of the reasons that you model _and_ simulate is
that it is _very_ difficult to _get_ _real_ data for the model
components and the _main_ area of interest is in the dynamics of the
system.

Isaac:

>How is determining whether coersion takes place a quibble? It
coersion >is not taking place, then what are you modelling?

Me:

_CONTROL_.

Isaac:

we all assume that control underlies social interactions. But this

is at the

principle level. It offers no rules that say how it is determined

coersion is

taking place.

What data do you have to show that a "principle level" exists? The
"rules" apply to _all_ control systems at _any_ level. ( if in fact
levels exist as postulated by Bill ) Coercion is a _name_ that is
given to an aspect of control. Nothing more, nothing less,

Me:

Coercion is an _aspect_ and is derived from the process of
_CONTROL_.

Isaac:

so we all assume, and i agree.

Apparently not. If coercion _is_ an aspect of control and is derived
_from_ the process of control, how can you say as you do above that
"It ( the model ) offers no rules that say how it is determined
coersion is taking place" Exactly what do we agree about? That the
model represents a control process? That coercion is a name given to
an aspect of that process? That the aspect ( coercion ) exists? Please
tell me.

Me:

The question _for me_ is _what_ is coercion? How would I
know it? What does it look like?

Isaac

same with me.

Me:

The model answers those questions.

Isaac:

No it does not.

Me:

It does for me.

The model does _not_ answer the question as to _when_ in the
interaction you may call this "coercion". It does identify the
phenomenon of coercion.

You along with Tim seem to have a difficult time reading and
comprehending.

i do not deserve to be insulted. please do not apologize, just stop

it.

I have no intention of apologizing for fantasized wrongs. I said what
I felt, without being sarcastic and rude.

I did _not_ say _whether_ coercion takes place or not
is a quibble.

And whether coersion takes place or not is not answered by the

simulation.

No it's answered by the model structure _and_ the simulation.

Let me see your model. with or without simulation. let me see how your
model structure produces _your_ version of coercion. Anything less is
as Richard Kenneway would say "Coffee house chatter" and I am not
interested in this thread unless you folks can _show_ a different
model structure that _produces_ whatever it is you want to call
coercion :-). It's time to put up or shut up :slight_smile: as they say in the
trade.

Marc