Ain't Science Confusing

CSGnet Archive CSG1996
1

[From Rick Marken (960627.1320)]

Jeff Vancouver (960627.14:45 EST) re: Bill's comments on the following
excepts from Science News (June 22, 1996):

      Sensory systems capture and encode the raw pictures and sensations
      of their surroundings, then dispatch that information as electrical
      pulses through neural pathways to the brain. There, after cerebral
      circuits collate and process those signals, a plan emerges. The
      brain issues commands for action. A sequence of electrical signals
      pulses through the neurological network back down to the body's
      extremities.

      Receiving their marching orders, fingers come together, an arm
      rises, a hand hovers. Two glasses clink, and a toast is made.

It should not surprise me that I cannot predict Bill P. response to
things. But I guess that is because we don't actually predict :).

Of course we predict; in PCT, prediction is carried out by the imagination
connection (see B:CP). Prediction is just not part of what a control system
does as part of the process of controlling a perception. (The same is true of
information, by the way. Information is a controllable perception -- I can
perceive and control how much information I get about a topic. Information is
just not something that is used by control systems in order to control).

I can predict almost perfectly what Bill will treat as a disturbance to PCT
(and, thus, what statements he will respond to); and I'm sure Bill can
predict what I will treat as a disturbance to PCT also. That's because we
both understand PCT pretty well (well, he VERY well, me pretty well). But
this predictability must seem like magic to you. Or perhaps you imagine
that Bill and I are colluding behind the scenes ("OK, Bill, why don't we
throw a hissy fit about this information in perception stuff just to get
Martin's goat"). But you'd be surprised; if you would learn PCT, you would
see how the magic really works -- and you could predict Bill's and my
behavior perfectly;-)

I was expecting that he [Bill] would find this statement comforting.

I don't suppose that this mistake would lead you to suspect that your grasp
of PCT might be a tad more tenuous than you might imagine it to be?

I would suggest that it's easier to learn PCT if you don't make a priori
assumptions about what PCT _MUST BE_. For example, don't asssume that PCT
_MUST BE_ compatible with conventional theories and methods of studying
behavior.

Predictably,

Rick

2

[from Jeff Vancouver 960627.16:40 EST]

[From Rick Marken (960627.1320)]

Me:

> I was expecting that he [Bill] would find this statement comforting.

Rick:

I don't suppose that this mistake would lead you to suspect that your grasp
of PCT might be a tad more tenuous than you might imagine it to be?

I would suggest that it's easier to learn PCT if you don't make a priori
assumptions about what PCT _MUST BE_. For example, don't asssume that PCT
_MUST BE_ compatible with conventional theories and methods of studying
behavior.

Predictably,

Funny, I predicted your response pretty well. Does this mean I understand
your version of PCT much better than Bill's? Don't worry, I suspect just
the opposite. I now suspect it is your version that would have a problem
with my description of proactive behavior in the draft paper.

But, the question is whether 1) my reinterpretation of the Science News
article is reasonable, and 2) whether that reinterpretation is more in
line with PCT than whatever interpretation Bill P. (or apparently you)
made?

I am just trying to get an understanding of the input functions that are
interpreting all "other" stuff as anti-PCT. I think I know your function
pretty well.

It is interesting the tactic that you use. By saying I do not understand
PCT as well as I think I do you are saying "open yourself up for
reorganizing." This is the same tactic the military used to use in boot
camp. Once the reorganizing system is easily triggered, you (or the
sargent) are ready to provide a model for the revised function. Forgive
me if I use the same tactic - you do not know the psychological literature
as well as you think. But, like I have said, I do not think your
reorganizing system is anywhere near producing an error here, so never
mind. Don't get me wrong, minds need to be immune to reorganizing in
parts. Otherwise, one would never get much done because one would always
be trying new things (i.e., reorganizing). But what I am trying to
politely say, is that I do not wish to engage you, Rick Marken, in this
conversation. If you perchance read something I post that makes you
change your mind, I would love to hear it. But otherwise, I know what you
think.

Later

Jeff