Editing the Content and title of your post

[bnhpct]

The Quote tool captures a quote within a quote in a straightforward way, but here is an example of confusion when Discourse quote tags are combined with CSGnet-style attribution tags.

@rsmarken

@rsmarken

The Test does not involve p at all. It involves only observables – i.e., the observer’s perceptions.

RM: Actually, it was Bill who said this, not me.

@EetuP

Rick,

Yes, I tried to show in text that the quotation was from Powers. (I wrote the message in Discourse interface and used its quote tool and it made it seem like it was yours.)

Here is the context from which Eetu was quoting:

@rsmarken

[From Bill Powers (961224.1145 MST)]
…
BP (emphasis mine, RM): As far as the observer is concerned, what is controlled is ONLY the CV. The idea that this CV is represented by a perceptual signal inside the other system is theoretical. We can observe CV, but not p. When we apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p. The action that opposes the effect of the disturbance acts on CV, not p. The Test does not involve p at all. It involves only observables – i.e., the observer’s perceptions. The observations have priority; the model comes second, and its only reason for existence is to explain the observations. When you fool around with thought-experiments too much, you tend to get the priorities reversed.

The most consistent solution would be to quote from the archive category/topic and retain the tag and link that Discourse provides leading back to the source of the quote.

The other solution, and the only one available in this instance because there is no Discourse tag linking to the source in the archive, is to keep the CSGnet-style quote attribution tag:

@rsmarken

[From Bill Powers (961224.1145 MST)]
…
BP: The Test does not involve p at all. It involves only observables – i.e., the observer’s perceptions.

Rick did this just before the quoted passage, and this example also shows how the Quote tool in Discourse handles nested quotes:

@rsmarken

@EetuP

BP: It’s the other way around. ALL we can observe of another person’s controlling is the CV; what we can’t observe is the “CP” – the controlled perception in the other person.

EP: According to this (Powers): CP = controlled perception (inside controller); CV = controlled (physical) variable (in the external environment of the perceivers). But then (Powers):

RM: No, the CV is a perception; it’s what the observer observes. It is definitely not a physical variable in the external environment. It is a FUNCTION of physical variables in the environment.