i.kurtzer (980809.1500)
Rick, I am confused again. I suspect I am one of those persons with an
agenda. One so strong as to blind me to the stength of your position. In
contrast, you suggest we carry about this business scientifically and have at
once even compared yourself to a a Nobel prize winning physicists in
engagement with Hassids. So I am confused how you can drop our discussion at
a point that we could start fleshing it out where we disagree. We know that
we differ. So why? I tried to get you to present a bare-boned argument,
given step by step so we can see at which step we disagree.
With that would you help me understand where we disagree?
I'm resending the relevant portion of an position outline. Please tell me if
its accurate and where. Thanks in advance.
..............................................................................
...............
rick:
Instead of just pointing out what's wrong with everything I
say about my model of coercion perhaps you could explain
what I should be saying about it.
i:
two agents A and B--A is the "stronger one"
Rick, is strength is simulated as a function of gain becaue it was once max.
output in the arguments?
i will leave out the B's-qo option (where A controls B's qo) as B never
control's B's qo. Moreover, A can control B's qo without any conflict over a
range of references of both parties--simply by disturbing B's qi. This works
the other way as well as gain is irrelevant.
1. rick has a simulation of two agents interacting so that both have the same
qi.
2. Agent A is simulated as far more strong
3. By the working equations Agent A has a greater effect on the common qi than
B
4. By making A strong enough the qi is predictable without having to look at
B.
5. qi follows A's reference.
6. A is controlling qi.
7. B is not controlling qi.
8. HOW this maps to CLASSIFYING types of interactions has not been explicated
by the simulation's author.
Until your recent post on the various meaning of control, we have agreed with
1-7.
I trust that you made a mistake, and intend "control" to mean what you have
based your experimental record on.
However, 8 is the doozy. It is your proposal, what do you propose?
i.
[From Rick Marken (980809.1415)]
i.kurtzer (980809.1500) --
I suspect I am one of those persons with an agenda.
Yes. That is my interpretation of your behavior.
So I am confused how you can drop our discussion at a point
that we could start fleshing it out where we disagree.
I'm just not interested anymore. I know where we disagree. If
you still don't then there's really nothing I can do (or want
to do) about it. I guess it will just have to remain a mystery
to you.
Since Bill and I seem to understand each other perfectly
and since Bill seems to disagree with your position on
"coercion" as thoroughly as I do (and for the same reasons),
maybe you can move your questioning over to him. He is _much_
more patient than I am (note his [Bill Powers (980809.1303MD)]
delicious reply to Kenny Kitzke (980809.1200 EDT) vs my
[Rick Marken (980809.1300)] "overwrought" reply to Bruce Gregory
(980809.1540) (the aspirin seem to be kicking in, by the way,
Bruce; thanks for the tip; glad to see your keeping up with
your medication, too;-)).
Best
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
i.kurtzer (980810.0100)
[From Rick Marken (980809.1415)]
i.kurtzer (980809.1500) --
> So I am confused how you can drop our discussion at a point
> that we could start fleshing it out where we disagree.
I'm just not interested anymore. I know where we disagree. If
you still don't then there's really nothing I can do (or want
to do) about it. I guess it will just have to remain a mystery
to you.
I have a suspicion about where we disagree, but by no means am i convinced.
And I find it odd that you would refuse to try to find with me where we
disagree. It could even be seen as being unscientific, but i don't have as
low a consideration of your motives as you do mine. I suspect instead you're
just angry with me.
Since Bill and I seem to understand each other perfectly
and since Bill seems to disagree with your position on
"coercion" as thoroughly as I do (and for the same reasons),
maybe you can move your questioning over to him.
Mayber i will. Of course, an adult should be able to deal with their own
messes.
Saying nasty things and then ducking for cover are rather paltry arguments.
So Bill what do you say? How about we take it real slow and try to find where
we disagree.
i.