<[Bill Leach 960219.18:43 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]
MONSIEUR REMI COTE 960219.1500 EST
... with this subject. But I thank you Martin for your respect.
I will make a public apology to you Remi if my posting was perceived by
you as a lack of respect for you. I respect you for a number of reasons
not the least of which are your own rather obvious respect for others and
what I perceive as your serious desire to engage in honest dialog.
Further, I will not attempt (or maintain) a discussion of PCT (or much of
anything else) with someone unless I do have a respect for the other
party to the discussion.
We all "slip up" from time to time, some more than others. We also all
seem to be unable to completely avoid "interjecting" some of our own
favorite "opinion sets" into what should be purely PCT related
discussions (that is the objective shifts from PCT or PCT's relationship
to a belief to actually expounding the other belief).
What I am talking about IS NOT your own discussion of "Fire-Theory"
which I perceived as being discussed by you from its' relationship to
PCT. Your use of the phrase "technological contamination" however was a
significant disturbance to my own perception of _how I think technology
should be perceived (by others also)_ and I controlled to attempt to
restore that perception back to its' reference level. The phrase
"technological contamination" is irrefutably a statement moral or ethical
judgement with respect to technology. PCT, like any good scientific
study is itself "value free".
A statement such as "I believe that technology is bad for humanity." is
an opinion that literally invites discussion and likely will result in
new insights for all participants (though still probably not too
appropriate here).
Referring to technology as "technological contamination" is tantamont to
an insult when communicating via an advanced technology on computer
mailing listserver for a hard science based research group.
We obviously (also obviously in my opinion) have a vastly different
opinion of the value of technology to mankind. Ideally, neither of us
should "champion" our own opinion on such matters where that opinion is
not directly relevent to PCT, unfortunately none of us is ideal.
I will agree that I did "come on a bit strongly" but will not "back off"
on the idea that claiming that technology causes things to happen is in
any way different from claiming that humans are stimulas-response
organisms (without a great deal more than just assertion).
I will try one more time to have a meaningful exchange with you. If you
can accept that I too do not always understand what others are trying to
say (and recognize that myself), I too know that I am not always correct
in what I believe, that I too have passions about things other than PCT
and sometimes "express" those passions when maybe I should not, then
maybe you and I can have a dialog with each other that is of value to us
both. In your response to me, you repeated said that you "don't care".
I hope indeed that maybe it was that I unintentionally wounded your
"little" ego (as you have referred to your ego several times) and you
really do care.
M. Remi COTE 960218.1110
Artificial mean Man-Made (harrap)
I did indeed take you to have this meaning and my opinion on this matter
may well be of no value to anyone other than myself. Referring to the
environment itself IN WHICH HUMANS LIVE, altered through control action
by humans as "artificial" has no meaning for me. To me that is like
calling a nest built by a bird an artificial nest.
OTOH, to call an environment created by a human FOR an animal would a
reasonable use of the term.
Quality of life is at stake here, not quantity.
I agree that quality of life is vitally important but I hope that you
recognize that the very term might be an impossible thing to define in
any rigorous way. The only definition that I am aware of that has a
chance is that of relating "quality of life" to "sustained overall
control system error" within the specific individual.
slavery appear after fire
I am not a great student of anthropology but I do doubt that your
assertion is correct if salvery is meant to mean the forcing of one or
more persons to do the will of yet another person(s).
Me:
With respect to final results, the environment rarely even has much
influence much less "control"!
You:
try to breath air in space, or in water. try to lift yoursel in a
10 G environement. Try to go deer hunting in downtown, and tell me
about the squat team manner.
I would indeed like to be among those few that HAVE breathed air in
space but I have breathed a great deal of air when in water, I fly too!
And that is my point, technology makes these "impossible" things happen.
Should a large enough group of people desire to hunt deer downtown, it
too would happen since it would require a rather minor application of
technology (and a widespread set of warped values -- my opinion
obviously). As far as I know, having to deal with a sustained 10G
environment does not appear to be an immediate problem. I do not know
the present state of work in handling high acceleration environments.
You:
Environement is responsible for the perturbation that influence our
perception. We try to control perception. I assert that fire bring more
perturbation. Proove me wrong or ostracysed me, like I am sure you
will but I really don't care, cause I don't want to control you.
So called "natural events" can perturb our perceptions. Any change in
any CEV that is perceived regardless of the cause does this so I don't
see the significance of what you said.
The essence of my difficulty with what I perceive you to be saying
probably rests with your use of the term "responsible". The only literal
meaning that I can extract for myself from what you have said here is:
1. The environment is responsible for the perturbations that influence
our perception.
2. Fire brings more perturbations.
3. Fire is technology, therefore technology brings more perturbations.
4. I assumed that perturbations was intended to mean disturbance in
situations where the perception perturbed is a controlled perception.
5. Therefore technology IS RESPONSIBLE for perturbations to our
controlled variables. That is technology because of some physical
property of technology itself causes people to do what they actually
are observed doing.
I may very well be misinterpreting what you mean by "responsible" but I
seriously doubt it (though still invite you to demonstrate otherwise).
1. I perceive that you believe that the human "quality of life" as it
now exists is not only less than ideal but not a "good" as it could
and _should_ be (an opinion I would suggest is universally shared
here on CSGNET).
2. I perceive that you believe that it is technology itself that has
caused this condition to exist.
3. Fire theory predicts or explains why #2 is true.
IF my perception stated in #2 and 3 are correct, then I stand by my
assertion that "Fire Theory" is fundamentally incorrect as a theory with
respect to human behaviour.
The reason that I make this assertion is exactly the same reason that
Rick Marken so often asks the question "Does the environment CONTROL
perception?".
The Jews did not die in the holocaust because fire (or firearms, or toxic
gases) existed but only because living control systems set a reference
for the death of those people and USING technology overwhelmed those Jews
(and political dissenters, etc). The CAUSE of the death of those people,
the RESPONSIBILITY for the death of those people rests not with the
technology, not with the environment (san people) but exclusively with
the "will" or purpose of the people that so employed the technology.
If your use of the "Fire Theory" is intended to include the "other" people
in the environment but also that somehow technology causes or influences
these other people to enslave or murder (for examples) their fellow
creatures then again, I still assert that you are positing a position
that is absolutely incompatible with PCT. Notice however that I AM NOT
asserting that technology was not required for the particular event to
occur in the manner in which it did in fact occur. That is technology
has made possible the murder of millions people by only a few thousand
in a relatively short period of time BUT IT DID NOT CAUSE THE EVENT TO
OCCUR!!
Me:
Had you said something like "Some people have USED power made available
through the use of technology to limit or restrict the range and/or
ability of other people to control their own perceptions."
You:
If you blindfold somebody, you have some power over his perception, no?
This comment seems to me to suggest that somewhere we are "talking past"
each other. I fully agree that if you blindfold somebody you then have
some power over his perception.
I believe that you will agree with the following:
1. It is possible for person "A" to overwhelm person "B" though the use
of their own personal physical strength.
2. It is possible for person "A" to cause person "B" to perform an
action that the person "B" would not normally perform if person "A"
can create an environmental condition that requires what person "A"
wants person "B" to do in order for person "B" to "get" some other
thing that person "B" wants. [this one was not at all well worded
from a PCT sense but after deleting several attempts as probably
being far too long and complex in wording to be comprehesible...
"to cause person 'B'" is to have reference to perceive person 'B'...]
3. It is not necessary for #2 that a "real, physical condition" exist
but only that person "B" perceives that such a condition exists.
4. All of these are examples of one person controlling or at least an
attempting control of another.
Where person "B" definately has a reference for NOT doing what person "A"
wants person "B" to do then:
5. Situation #1 is clearly a "use of force" type of control attempt.
6. Situation #3 is a "coercion" type of control attempt.
7. Situation #2 may be both.
8. Where person "B" does not have a reference for what person "A" wants
then situations 2 & 3 _may_ not be stressful for person "B". ie:
person "B" might be quite happy to do what "A" wants where doing so
also satisfies "B's" own wants.
I think that you will probably agree with:
1. Humans have probably been using direct "brute" force "against" each
other to achieve their own wants for as long as humans have existed
in groups of a size exceeding one.
You may well not agree with:
2. Fire was NOT the first application of technology. The use of rocks
and sticks to do something other than just lay on the ground (as
would be their "natural" state) was probably the first technological
inovation.
3. Both rocks and sticks were used by humans to attempt to control the
behaviour of other humans (besides the other uses to which such
"technology" was applied).
If you do not agree with item 2 above, I would REALLY like to know why!
Now if we can agree so far then maybe I can better express what bothers
me about what I perceive you to be saying:
By telling me that "Fire" (or technology) is _responsible_ for Cain
killing Able, I see you as telling me that the ROCK is the REASON why
Able died as opposed to Cain's INTENT or purpose.
That is, either because the rock existed, or because of some property of
the rock, or even because of Cain's knowledge that applying a force to a
rock in a certain way could result in the termination of a life is the
reason that Cain killed Able. Such an assertion is, to me anyway,
utterly preposterous. [and yes I know the Bible does not say that a
rock was used for the operation]
Remi:
You didn't understand:
I basically believe that a mutation or a reorganisation of gene is
selected only if it is a necessity to survive, if it give an advantage
over competition to get more chance of survival.
Remi:
I tought I made myself clear, but who care!
You are quite right in that I did not understand (and believe that I
still don't. Possibly what you mean by the term "selected" might be at
the root of my misunderstanding.
For example, do you mean that characteristics such as the color of the
eye is not a "selected" mutation even though multiple colors persist?
Remi:
Here I should repeat to make myself clear, It is not the brain that
allow more psychological suffering, it is the environement.
Me:
Once again, unless I am completely misunderstanding what you are trying
to say, your last sentence is utterly false.
Remi:
It is too bad.
And here I guess I will again be a bit "harsh" with my own attitude. To
tell PCTers that it is the environment as opposed to people that causes
or "allows" "more psychological suffering" and then tell one of us that
challenges that assertion that "It is too bad." is a discourtesy.
I perceive you as claiming something that is utterly false from the
perspective of PCT while admitting that I could be misunderstanding what
you are saying and then you tell me essentially "go to hell - I don't
really care if you understand me or not". I can't make you care, you
know it, I know it. But as far as I am concerned it is really a shame
that you seem not to care enough about me or respect me enough to even
make the effort to seriously attempt to communicate your ideas.
I (naturally enough, I think) believe that I am correct when I am saying
something about PCT (or I would not say it) but I also have a couple of
years of experience with the fact that my understanding may not be as
good as I thought it was -- IF I interact with others here and IF the
dialog is an honest attempt at reaching an understanding then I learn
something and correct my errors (either in fact or in my understanding of
the ideas of another).
Me:
I personally think that theories such as "fire-evolution" are worse than
no help at all. Blaming human problems upon anything else other than
human failure to understand control theory and its' implications only
serves to divert badly needed attention to useless efforts.
You:
If it is really what you think, explain to me why did you reply my
post. You are conflicted with antagonism, it is not a pretty sight!
The explaination as to why I responded to your posting is easy. My
perception is that you genuinely are interested in the theory of human
behaviour. It also seems to me that you have made effort to study and
understand PCT. I have concluded from several of your previous postings
that you do understand the general concepts of control theory. Some of
the things that you said in the posting to which I replied appeared to be
clearly in opposition to implications of fundamental principles of
control theory and PCT. I (appearently mistakenly) assumed that if my
interpretation of what you were saying was not correct that you would go
to the trouble of continuing the process of coming to terms. If my
interpretation was indeed correct then hopefully we (and others) could
continue the discussion if you did not understand why I made my
assertions (also appearently an incorrect assumption).
Depressed, I am. Conflicted with antagonism, I don't believe so.
Me:
I doubt that land based mammals such as humans would be particularly
adept at identifying what limits might and might not exist in such
an environment anyway.
You:
Pessimist!
Actually it has nothing to do with optimism either. It is a simple
belief that if you can not perceive an environment the way that another
species perceives that environment then you can not control in that
environment in the same way that the other species controls. If that is
true then you are also not too likely to "develop solutions" to problems
that you can not perceive, in the same fashion as the other species would
either. Based upon the PCT principle that you can not control what you
can not perceive.
You:
A teck-environement is totaly different from a "natural" world.
What does this statement mean? Is this meant to be some sort of profound
statement? Is anything more than humans running around naked picking
berrys and vegetables a "non-natural" world? Is using rocks, sticks,
hides using technology? If not, why is it not? To me such a statement
says no more than "A different world is a different world."
You:
Don't forget that I really don't care about you and your idea, I am not
controlling you Bill L...
Too bad. Not that you are not trying to control me of course but that
you don't care. I care but that is just my personal problem if you don't
also care since I will not try to control you either.
You:
Don't watch too much t.v., that teck can be a bad dope!
Well at least we are in full agreement about television!
-bill