Tom and others
Sorry it takes a while to reply--I read from the net and write from another
program. I wrote some replies in the last few days from home but my modem
connections sorta killed them. ANyway...
Am I simply trying to make PCT more palatable to non-PCT'ers? Absolutely
not!! I know all about the watering down of control theory and it bothers
me also. As I have said before, Nothing is changed in saying "controlling
error" and I do not think controlling perceptions is Wrong by any means.
What I am saying is that Both are right if it is understood at what level
or perspective from which one is speaking. Controlling error is correct at
a "deeper" level. Perhaps I should give up the notion of trying to change
what we say and simply concentrate on simply making a point about what the
organism is Really doing.
In this regard, I think (?) Audra and I are talking about something
different, even though I think we started off talking about the same thing.
I think Bruce is catching what I am saying. Our EXPERIENCE is that we
control perceptions. No argument there. But that does not mean that that
is what we are REALLY doing (which is controlling error, suprise suprise).
Yes, of course we have lots of excellent evidence that we control
perceptions--I agree that such evidence is evidence of controlling
perceptions. But understand WHY it is that way...neural structures have
reorganized in such a way that perceptions are brought under control.
Those structures exist because they have been successful in accomplishing
what all us organisms have in common--controlling error, which is in some
way (that I unfortunately cannot ascertain yet) epistemically related to
Survival. We didn't Consciously come up with these reorganizations--the
organism has mechanisms by which these processes occur. Then there are
these experiences that we have which may or may not related to what is
really going on, more or less. It's like the idea that one figures out an
answer, and THEN (not WHEN) becomes aware of it.
From what I know of PCTers, I thought that most of you held such similar
conceptions of our mechanistic selves, but perhaps I have built up "What
PCTers think" less from observation than I think: Somehthing illogical
like, "I think like PCTers. I think x. Thus PCTers think x." Anyway, the
point of this paragraph is that I don't expect you to disagree, even though
it Seems we are opposing views.
Now I don't think this is simply a semantic point, although it is at one
level. It SEEMS really critical to me. But perhaps someone who sees what
I am saying and agrees would say "Its a good point, but it really isn't
THAT critical." I can't tell--I'm just me.
Carpe' Diem
Mark
"It is impossible to do only one thing."
Educational Psychology 210 USmail: 405 South 6th St. #4
College of Education Champaign, IL 61820
Univ of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
phone: (home) 351-8257 e-mail: (Internet) m-olson@uiuc.edu