Accepting PCT w/o Accepting PCT

[From Rick Marken (940923.0800)]

Martin Taylor (940922 13:30) --

I don't understand this at all. The difference between directed and
undirected evolution is whether a mutation is more likely than not to
aid the organisms that carry it IN THE FOLLOWING GENERATIONS
to get to the food.

Corret. You don't understand this at all.

Rick (Horatio Nelson) Marken seems to think that in the absence of controlled
mutation, natural selection will not occur

Wrong. I believe that the process called "natural selection" will not be
sufficently _efficient_ to overcome geologically rapid enviromental changes
that obviate existing adaptive capabilities.

Can Marken perceive the PCT filter through which the data are interpreted?

Of course I can. Again, that's what the "Blind men" paper is about. Without
the PCT filter, one will be deceived into accepting side effects of
controlling as evidence of stimuli causing behavior, reinforcement selecting
behavior or organisms generating output. When you put on the PCT filter (the
test for the controlled cariable) you can see that all are side-effects of
control. I think that, after about three years on CSG-L, it's about time for
you to take off the hallucinatory goggles of information theory and put on
the PCT filter. It's just a matter of wanting to.

I showed some of my own "nice clear reliable data" from old experiments, a
year or two ago. Rick's response then was "nice data, bad theory" and
therefore pointless.

If I said "nice data", then I was just being nice;-)

Jeff--NO data will be accepted as valid in this discussion group unless it
was collected by a PCT-accredited individual using The Test.

That's correct, Martin. Do you know why?

Psychophysical data are useless because psychophysics was invented by
someone who believed in stimulus-response ideas.

No. That's not why, Martin. If you hurry up, maybe you can come up with the
correct answer before Tom explains it to you.

Martin, you seem to have spent three years on CSG-L "accepting" PCT without
actually accepting it at all. Why? It seems like a very peculiar position to
be in but, then, it's up to you. But I don't think there is much hope of your
making a contribution to understanding the nature of purposeful systems until
you land on one side of the fence or the other. When you disparigingly say:
"NO data will be accepted as valid in this discussion group unless it was
collected by a PCT-accredited individual using The Test" you betray either
an ignorance of one of the most basic facts of PCT or a reluctance to accept
it; I don't know which. There is no way you could make such a statement after
having read and understood (to pick one important example) Powers'
"Quantitative analysis of purposice systems" paper in Psych Review (and
LCS I). We know that it is hard to believe that observed relationships
between independent and dependent variables are, in themselves, meaningless,
especially if they are only statistical. But that's just the way it is. You
might not like it, especially when you realize what it implies about
everything you have done in the past. But that's the way it is; phlogeston
chemists had a rough time after oxygen was discovered too.