[From Rick Marken (2000.09.26.1850)]
Bill Powers (2000.09.26.1705 MDT)
I disagree with Rick about whether we can know we are
controlling the real world. It's all perception, I say
fairly often.
Lord knows, I didn't mean to say that we can _know_ we are controlling
the real world. What I meant to say is that we can't avoid taking
responsibility for controlling behavior (if that's what we want to do)
by pointing to PCT and saying that the theory says we only control
our _perceptions_ of behavior. That's because an important part of
the theory is the assumption that the perceptions we control
are a function of variables in the real world (the "environment"
component of the PCT model).
According to PCT, when you control perceptions you are controlling
functions of variables in the real world. Indeed, the existence of
these real world variables (qi, d, o) could be considered the biggest
assumption of the model since these variables cannot (and _will
never_) be observed!! All we know about for sure is the existence
of the perceptual world; p in the model. The fact that the control
model works so well, but only when we plug in certain values and
forms for variables and functions that are assumed to exist in
the real world, can be considered one piece of evidence that the
real world exists.
So I think there is a sense in which the success of the control
of perception model can be considered evidence that what we
actually control, when we control our perceptions, is the real
world. Once, based on PCT, you accept the fact that the apparent
real world you control is actually control of perception, you can
move on, using PCT, to accept the assumption that the perceptions
you control are the real world...Grasshopper.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com