Hi Martin
MT: I suspect that Bill would be rather disappointed if he were to come back and find no progress in the development of PCT since he died.
RM: Of course he would, although I think your idea of what constitutes “progress in the development of PCT” would be quite different than his.
MT: However, what is mostly discussed here (except by RM, whose vision seems to change from day to day depending on who he is arguing against) is firmly based on PCT as described by Bill.
RM: It’s certainly based on PCT as described by Powers, but not all that firmly. For example, your concept of a controlled environmental variable (CEV) is particularly problematic. It is either redundant with the concept of controlled variable (CV) and, thus, unnecessary, or it is simply wrong, which it is when conceived of as a variable in the environment that is not equivalent to the corresponding perceptual variable. As Bill said in one of his replies to you: “The CEV can never be defined independently of the perceptual signal…” [Bill Powers (940831.0610 MDT)]. That’s because the perceptual signal is a theoretical variable that explains the existence of what you call the CEV (and what Bill and I call the controlled variable or controlled quantity).
Best, Rick