From [Marc Abrams (2006.05.17.1642)]
In a message dated 5/17/2006 4:16:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:
[Martin Taylor 2006.05.17.15.50]
From [Marc Abrams (2006.05.17.1040)]
Before I depart I thought it might be worthwhile trying to explain that he use of metaphor is no crime nor does it stop one from doing useful modeling or research.
True. I don’t think that needs explanation. Metaphor is at the root of most scientific advances.
What it does do is put certain parameters on what may be attained by that modeling and research,
Nearly true.
Martin, do you believe this answer is a responsive one? What am I supposed to make of it? How do you propose that we discuss this with answers like this?
and here is where the rub comes in for those sensitive to this on CSGnet.
I don’t think so. I think that if there is a “rub” it is the loss of explanatory power entailed in demoting to metaphor what is better specified within its own domain.
The reason we use metaphors is that we can’t literally describe it or measure it. You are not “demoting” to metaphor, you are trying to clarify. You say demote because that means you cannot define it precisely and that is my point. The “feedback” you say are “signals” are not in fact “signals” but metaphors for “patterns” you believe exist in the environment
I find it interesting that you have failed to answer any of my questions about your assertions about signals and have now made the argument about metaphor. How convenient, I think they call this a red herring.
When you are dealing in metaphor, you always have to worry about what differences the native and the current context make in the explanatory power of the metaphor.
Yes, so how do you not call social “feedback” a metaphor using these very guidelines? How do you precisely know, measure and differentiate between emotional “signals” and other types?
How do you know what has been “fed back” and what has not?
One day we may be able to answer these questions but not right now, and that’s ok, no crime in saying we come up a bit short.
You can’t change anything in the metaphor, because the properties are set in the native domain.
This makes little sense to me. When you can understand something literally, there is no longer any need to deal in metaphor You may for purposes of explanation but it is not necessary.
What do you mean by “native domain”?
If you treat the “thing” as legitimate in its own domain, then if you find some property is inconsistent with observation, you can change the theory. You can’t do that if the “thing” is treated as a metaphor.
I’m lost. I have no clue as to what you are getting at here, sorry, can you amplify and expand?
In PCT, a signal is a concept within the theory. It’s helpful that it’s the same concept in the same context as is a signal in a broader engineering context. In neither case is a signal electrical impulses or photons or waves or neural impulses. They may be carriers of signals, but they are not themselves signals.
Sounds like a metaphor to me. You yourself cannot literally describe it. You say it is “the same concept as…”.
How is this different than metaphor? Either we do, or don’t currently know what something literally is.
What am I missing here?.
Of course, you are entitled to use any words you like to describe any concept you want, but if the idea is to communicate, it’s nice to use the words in much the same way as do the people with whom you want to communicate.
I agree, so are you suggesting I call a “signal” a physical entity because people on CSGnet think it is?
Where and when does the truth enter the picture?
Marc,
Why is it that you can write sensibly and seriously on the mailing list you moderate, but can write little except nasty ad hominem attacks every time you get into a dialogue that lasts more than two or three exchanges on CSGnet?
That’s really very easy and simple to answer. I get respect on the list I moderate. Do you think Thalhammer and Marken show me any respect? I don’t see you lecture Rick on his etiquette and manners? I don’t see you addressing his outrageous claims and lies and his lack of evidence and warrants.
How about it Martin? Why not have a fair hand for all?
Every time I come on this list I do so in good faith. I am not the one who starts the trash talking, but I’ll be damned if I let it pass. I do have some self-respect and I don’t need to take any crap from some pin-head and some delusional liar, and I won’t.
Everyone on my list gets treated with the greatest amount of respect from me because that is how I want to be treated and that is how I’m treated.
I am truly interested in what others do and think, and I try to understand all the ideas that are thrown at me no how trivial they may seem to others. People believe in certain things for very good reasons and I need to respect those reasons even if I don’t particularly care for the ideas. Some of the things that have never materialized for folks on CSGnet.
Sure, we have the good etiquette crowd, but that is cloaked in hero worship for Bill Powers
I believe you would have a lot to contribute intellectually, if you could just let yourself do so.
I do have a lot to contribute and I will do so on that SD list. It is evident my ideas and “intellectual” prowess are not appreciated here and that is OK with me. I have a place I can call home and I’m proud of it. CSGnet has nothing to offer me and it is proven every time I resurface and post.
It’s a shame you get so frustrated here that you just lash out when someone disagrees with you, rather than arguing from evidence or theory.
You need to reread the posts my friend and do so carefully before making statements like this. I’m afraid you need to address this to your buddy Rick.
Couldn’t you please try to show what you really can do, intellectually? I know it’s in there.
Sure, we can start by you not throwing out red herrings at me and addressing some of the questions I had about your notion of “signals”? Or how about addressing some of Rick’s more preposterous claims?
I’m not sure why you feel the burden falls on me and not anyone else?
Or is that a personal attack when I dare question how you came to these ideas?
There are too many sacred cows here that have no business being in existence if real science was being practiced here and too many fragile ego’s that dare not be questioned.
Martin, I am of no use to this list. I’m interested in discovering the truth. Folks here are interested in protecting ego’s and reputations.
This place is a wasteland and will continue to be one until somebody looks in the mirror and is willing to get rid of the status quo.
I appreciate your thoughts and I’m looking forward to working with you on the other list. If you want to be removed I would be disappointed but I would understand and do so. Let me know.
Regards,
Marc