I believe in #4!!!!!!!!!!!
love,
Rikki
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rmarken@EARTHLINK.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 7:36 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list CSGNET
Subject: Re: Beliefs--reference or actual?
[From Rick Marken (981229.0840)]
Me:
Don't you know what you believe?
Bruce Gregory (981229.0805 EST) --
No.
I bet you do. Here's a list. See if you can answer "yes" to
any of these.
1. I believe for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows.
2. I believe that living systems have evolved to their current
forms over millions of years by some as yet unknown mechanism.
3. I believe that god created life in one 24 hour day.
4. I believe that Rick Marken is obsessed with being right.
5. I believe that it will be 80 degrees and sunny tommorrow.
It's not easy to tell science from religion, is it? Simply
different beliefs, I guess.
I think it's very easy to tell science from religion. Scientific
beliefs (references) are _revisable_ based on observable evidence.
Scientific beliefs are _tentative_; this means that scientific
beliefs must be set by higher level control systems that are
more interested in principles like "true understanding" than in
the specific beliefs (the specific setting of the lower level
references) themselves.
But how can I tell a thought from a belief?
I don't know. How can you tell a dog from a cat? I don't
know _how_ I can tell (that's a job for theory); I just
know the difference experientially.
My thoughts differ considerably from my perceptions, but I
may unusual.
I can (usually) tell the difference between my thoughts and
my perceptions (this difference seems to break in dreams).
But my thoughts involve the same dimensions of experience as
my perceptions; I think (just as I perceive) in terms of
sensations (colors, tones), configurations (shapes, timbres),
transitions (movements, trills), sequences, events, programs,
principles, etc. Don't you?
How can I tell a belief that is a reference signal from one
that isn't?
A belief that is a reference signal specifies a perceptual
state of affairs that you work to protect from disturbance. For
example, you seem to believe that beliefs are not references
for controlled variables; you are acting to protect a perception
that corresponds to that belief from the disturbance of the
things I say. I believe that beliefs often _are_ references for
controlled variables; I am obviously acting to protect a
perception that corresponds to that belief from disturbance.
Me:
It [the PCT theory of belief] explains, for example, why some
people will work hard to protect their belief in creationism from
the overwhelming disturbance that is the evidence of evolution.
According to PCT, it's not because these people are stupid;
it's because they are control systems -- very good control
systems.
Ye:
You and Ken Starr are living demonstrations of this principle.
Now you're getting it! In fact, every human is a living
demonstration of this principle. I am _exactly_ like Ken Starr
in this way (as are you and everyone else; one of the most
important things to learn from PCT is that we are _all_
controllers). Starr believes that Clinton is the anti-Christ
and Starr is acting to protect that belief from disturbance. I
believe that PCT is the correct model of human nature and I
am acting to protect that belief from disturbance.
The only difference between Ken and me (other than the obvious,
superficial ones -- Ken can't help the way he looks;-)) is that
I (actually, other control systems in me) actively subject my
belief in PCT to the disturbance of experimental test because
higher level systems in me are willing to _revise_ my belief
in PCT if the results of those experimental tests prove to be
insuperable disturbances. Starr does not appear to be willing
to subject his own beliefs to experimental test or to revise
those beliefs based on the outcome of those tests. Both Starr
and I have beliefs that are reference signals -- but my belief
is revisable (scientific) on the basis of experimental evidence;
Starr's beliefs do not appear to be revisable (they are
religious beliefs); they cannot be revised _in principle_ (the
principle, of course, being that certain things must be
_absolutely_ true).
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken