From Greg Williams (920521-2)
Bill Powers (920521.0800)
But as Gary said, Chaos ought to make us pause and ask what we mean by
"determined." When the behavior of a system for which all parameters and
initial conditions are known to 6 decimal places can't be predicted for
more than a few hours, the idea of determinism begins to look like an
illusion. You can explain present events on the basis of past conditions,
but given those past conditions you couldn't have predicted the present
events.
Bill, I know that you know that I wasn't arguing for a "predictable
determinism" in nervous system operation, but just to make it perfectly clear
to everyone else:
Dynamical systems models, AKA state-determined dynamical models (of which PCT
appears to be a species) can be EITHER deterministic or non-deterministic
(i.e., stochastic or even purely random). What distinguishes them from
(certain types of) "miraculous" models of the way parts of the world work is
that there are rules relating past "states" of the systems to future "states."
That is, the basic postulate is that the current "state" of a system is
completely dependent on the history of previous "states," via the (possibly
random) connecting rules (the "dynamical laws"). Now, for those who buy into
dynamical systems, whether deterministic (by which in THIS context is meant
NON-RANDOM) OR stochastic OR purely random, and whether open-loop OR closed-
loop, the historical determination of the current state of a system remains.
That is, taking a PCT circuit as an example dynamical system, the current
behavior/actions are (possibly unpredictable even in principle, if you buy
into certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, and almost certainly
unpredictable in practice, even if chaotic dynamics are not to be found in the
circuit) functions of the system's "state" history.
My point in bringing up the history-determination of current behavior/actions
of PCT circuits was to counter claims that PCT supports a notion of strict
individual autonomy. In general, dynamical systems which interact with other
dynamical systems have "state" time-trajectories which depend on those
interactions as well as on the systems' structures themselves, and do NOT have
miraculous changes in state, notwithstanding quantum fluctuations which some
treat as miraculous in the sense I am speaking of. Even with a "miraculous"
q.m. and/or stochastic dynamical laws and/or purely random laws, there is no
"Self"-like effector capable of "state" trajectory alterations which are
"deliberate" yet not functions of history.
Gary is particularly concerned about the implications of PCT regarding
manipulation by others. I've already said that PCT casts considerable doubt on
Skinnerian optimism about the potential for success of deliberate manipulation
of others -- even without chaos. But at the same time, PCT (unless augmented
as per my earlier posts) lends no credence to claims of traditional free-will
as exercised by a moral agent.
Accidents of nature don't disprove intention, because a correct
understanding of intention does not imply infallible prediction of future
disturbances -- or even the ability to resist the effects of every possible
disturbance.
Agreed. Now tell me what intention is in PCT models besides the operation of
closed-loop dynamical systems in interaction with their niches?
I agree with you [Gene B.] that the ethics in question comes down to an
analysis of human nature. It isn't that we OUGHT TO avoid conflict; it's that
we DO avoid conflict, and the reason we do is simple: those who didn't are no
longer with us. Darwin's Hammer.
Models of human nature (and, in particular, PCT models) indeed can help to
explain WHY individuals choose the particular ethical systems they adopt. But
such models (including PCT models) can't JUSTIFY any particular systems. To
say that the models CAN justify some system is to try to get from "is" to
"ought." I don't think even conjurers can pretend that.
ยทยทยท
-----
There are three major points I have tried to make in recent posts.
1. Current PCT models provide no support for traditional notions of a "Self"
with "free will." In this claim, I am neutral with respect to claims about
"predictive determination."
2. Current PCT models suggest that deliberate manipulations of an individual
by others are less likely to succeed than Skinnerians think.
3. PCT models, without added normative postulates, cannot justify any ethical
systems.
Greg