fire

[Cote_Remi]

From MONSIEUR REMI COTE 960222.0000 EST

< to [Bill Leach 960219.18:43 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

You:
you repeated said that you "don't care".
I hope indeed that maybe it was that I unintentionally wounded your
"little" ego (as you have referred to your ego several times) and you
really do care.

Me: I said to myself "I don't care" and "I cannot and don't want to
control Bill Leach" and it worked, it protect me from the "pain" of
rejection. Like antihistamine protect from headeach. It is a plain
exploitation of PCT.

I see a potential in this list, like no other list could have.
Researcher on this list have a kind of vision, they are "engaged".
They have a vision, a representation of the living world, and they
want to proove their point tothe rest of the world.
They want to see their systemic representation of the world fit
their perception of the theoretical system and set of
experimental data. It is the first time in history, that people
gather and communicate togeter about their truely nature, their
control system nature. So let forget about the lack of manner
that we both show...

Artificial mean Man-Made (harrap)

Distinction between artificial and natural is a crucial one.
It is not evolution that created the biological weapon use
in IRAK. If ETerrestrial, visit the vestige of our civilisation
in 1000 years and they found these weapon, they won't explain
it with evolution theory...I am a bit hollywoodian

Quality of life is at stake here, not quantity.

"quality of life" = "sustained overall control system error"
within the specific individual ... to a minimum possible.
I wanted to hypothesised an inverse relation between the two.
That is between: overall control system error & "quality of life"

Reasercher on this list could object in saying that it is in
adversity that one find the zest of life... Who's right?

slavery appear after fire

You:
I am not a great student of anthropology but I do doubt that your
assertion is correct if salvery is meant to mean the forcing of one or
more persons to do the will of yet another person(s).

Me: Chimps don't enslave themself, to antropologised we can say that
their social link look like mafia, but it is no chaingang... But
I cannot proove my point, but you don't either. Who's right?

You:
So called "natural events" can perturb our perceptions. Any change in
any CEV that is perceived regardless of the cause does this so I don't
see the significance of what you said.

Me: I am saying that a technologicaly conmtaminated environement cause
more perturbation than the same environement "unspoiled" by technology.

You:

5. Therefore technology IS RESPONSIBLE for perturbations to our
    controlled variables. That is technology because of some physical
    property of technology itself causes people to do what they actually
    are observed doing.

Me: More exactly, a teck environement where people have to deal with more
disturbance, cause more discrepancy between reference and input. Because
we are not adjusted to a natural environement, we are adjusted to an
artificial one, and artificial environement are more permissive for
individual who have big reference - input discrepancy (IN HIGHER LAYER
ON CONTROL LOOP, OF COURSE), and allow them to survive, and to suffer.

You:
The Jews did not die in the holocaust because fire

Me:Without technology: no culture, no religion, no mass murder.
Without fire, no technology.

You:
BUT IT DID NOT CAUSE THE EVENT TO OCCUR!!

Me: without technology = no accumulation of good, no economy, no politics
no mass media, no collective histeria based on ignorance, no language
no myths, etc...

You:
I think that you will probably agree with:

1. Humans have probably been using direct "brute" force "against" each
    other to achieve their own wants for as long as humans have existed
    in groups of a size exceeding one.

Me: No, cooperation and respect of hierarchies role are necessary to
survival, there is no need for brute in a team, where survival is at
stake.

You:
2. Fire was NOT the first application of technology. The use of rocks
    and sticks to do something other than just lay on the ground (as
    would be their "natural" state) was probably the first technological
    inovation.

Me: I have seen horse using a branche, holding it in their teeth, and
scratch temselves with it. They don't have civilisation for that.

You:
3. Both rocks and sticks were used by humans to attempt to control the
    behaviour of other humans (besides the other uses to which such
    "technology" was applied).

Me: If you hit somebody with a bat, in an atechnological world, you
will find yourself in a dominant position or in an submisive one, if
everybody decide to pick on you. There is no monopole of wooden bat.

···

But there can be a monopoly of technology (Norbert Elias wrote on this) You:
If you do not agree with item 2 above, I would REALLY like to know why!

Me: really, or are you blinded by preconception?

You:
For example, do you mean that characteristics such as the color of the
eye is not a "selected" mutation even though multiple colors persist?

Me: I am sorry for my impatience, I should have took time to explain to
you what I meant. A selected reorganisation of gene is a caracterise reor-
ganisation of gene that is somehow necessary for survival in a precise
environement and is necessary advantageous compare to a previous
organisation of the gene in a given environement.

Something is advantageous if it enhance survival and reproduction.

----------------------------------

You:
And here I guess I will again be a bit "harsh" with my own attitude. To
tell PCTers that it is the environment as opposed to people that causes
or "allows" "more psychological suffering" and then tell one of us that
challenges that assertion that "It is too bad." is a discourtesy.

Me:
Proove me wrong. I can't proove you are wrong, but I cannot proove
I am wrong (and honestly I tried because it is my duty as a scientific).
It's too bad but that is the way it work.
------------------------

You:
But as far as I am concerned it is really a shame that you seem not
to care enough about me or respect me enough to even
make the effort to seriously attempt to communicate your ideas.

Me: you nasty antagoniser

-----------
You:
I (naturally enough, I think) believe that I am correct when I am saying
something about PCT (or I would not say it) but I also have a couple of
years of experience with the fact that my understanding may not be as
good as I thought it was -- IF I interact with others here and IF the
dialog is an honest attempt at reaching an understanding then I learn
something and correct my errors (either in fact or in my understanding of
the ideas of another).

Me: The difficulty is the theory, the conceptual environement. It is
a technological environement. Like I told you the error are always
big in these environement, it is frustrating and lead to antagonism.
It is too bad...

______

You:

A teck-environement is totaly different from a "natural" world.

What does this statement mean? Is this meant to be some sort of profound
statement? Is anything more than humans running around naked picking
berrys and vegetables a "non-natural" world? Is using rocks, sticks,
hides using technology? If not, why is it not? To me such a statement
says no more than "A different world is a different world."

Me: As I said, in a teck world sometimes we don't have to care, which
as you underlined it is a bad thing, and sometimes we care too much
and there is no end to our suffering, because we are suffering from
big perpetual error signal in higher layer control loop...

Since you care enough to reply to me, then I find it ok to care
about your reply. But I don't care about you if you just want
to shut me with no argument at all. Do you realize that you
didn't gave me a single argument that proove me wrong beyound
reasonnable doubt. Are you reasonnable? Then I propose you
a challenge. Give me 3 reasonable argument that proove that
big brain came before technology. And remember that chiken
and egg are sometimes served in the same dish in our civilisation.
Is that a shame, a mother and her son on the grill...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

[To Martin Taylor 960220 14:00]
You:
I can't imagine where you get your data. It may be plausible, but is it
a fact?

Me: Here are some ref.:
Goudsblom, J. (1986). The human Monopoly on the use of fire: Its Origins
and Conditions, Human Evolution, 1,6, 517-523.

Goudsblom, J. (1987). The domestication of fire as a civilizing process.
Theory, Culture and Society, 4, 457-476.

Goudsblom, J., Jones, E.L. & Mennel, Stephen (1989). Human history & social
process, University of Exeter Press. (good explanation of phaseology)

Jacobs, K. & Godfrey,L. (1982). Cerebral leaps and bounds: a punctuational
perspective on hominid cranial capacity, man and his origin, Anthropos
Brno, 21, 77-87. (Jacobs teach at UdM)

---------

You:
For example, if one
is in a prison cell, like an animal in a zoo, one will not be controlling
perceptions that are components of such perceptual controls as "foraging
for food".

me: Good example. From my point of view, technology is a prison.

It is an environement where we have big disturbances and we cannot control
efficiently these disturbances (can I say that in PCT: " we cannot control
efficiently"?).
------------------------
you:

You find a lot more depressed animal (human included) in artificial
environement than in natural one.

If that is actually true, then one has to ask what it means to be "depressed."
What is going on in a "depressed" animal?

Me:just take the observable symtom, fatigue, no playfulness, no vivacity
necessary for survival... no need to look at mood
To survive, an animal can't pay himself this luxury. Human can because
of their golden cage.

Helplesness doesn't exist in nature, evolution reject this kind of
sickness, fire allowed promethea to live the live of god, but there
were no happy ending for him...
-----------
You:
We have a lot of metaphoric "concrete walls" in our social environment,
which have nothing to do with conflict. We try to change things, but
have no effect. Eventually we stop trying. What's the voting percentage
in US elections? People who don't find their vote making any difference
to their perception of society don't bother.

Me: concrete wall = technological wall, cultural. Since we decided to
go against the law's of nature, we loose our real freedom. It soud
granola to an extreme degree, but it is bigger than me. We were not
"suppose" to meet fire. It was an accident. I conceive humanity as an
accident. Of course, some accident can have good consequence, in the
long term, put I think we are still in the turmoil of the car crash,
we haven't yet figure out that the other driver is a beautiful blonde.
(blonde=PCT, of course)

-----------------------
You:
If the imagined perception
moves toward the imagined future reference value, then the imagined action
is "good".

Me: Question: Is this If-then sentence a description of unworryness?

---------------
You:
If this is a fair description of "worry" then I should think that a pre-fire
hunter could and would "worry" just as much as a modern business manager.
But of course, "worry" may be something quite different.

Me: I refer more to gatherer, than to hunter. Gatherer spend day's looking
for fruit, and also breaking bones for marrow. It is not dying of heart attack
at 31, having a binge of IBM share.
---------

You:

One of my first question was this one:

Is it ok to correlate minimum "reference - will" for higher
hierarchical control loop with the auto-actualisation phase
from Maslow or "whole" functionning from Rogers?

Since I don't know what you are referring to,

Me:
I presume you don't want to enter in third force thing, but you
understand the meaning of "reference - will" for top control loop.
I can reask. Is someone with a minimum "reference - will" happier
than someone with a significantly higher "reference - will", for
the top layer of control loop.

--------------

You:
as something that falls out from PCT.

Me: In my Bible, all theories are created equal, until they are falcified.

-------------------
Me:
I would like to make a proposal:
I am practicing lucid dreaming, If I enter a lucid dream, can I engage in
a specific activity that can give support to the PCT view about nature
of pure imagination, that is uncontaminated by outside distubance?

remi

[_Martin_Taylor]

[Martin Taylor 960222 17:30]

REMI COTE 960222.0000

I questioned where Remi got his data (REMI COTE 960219.1500) that

since the domestication of fire, some people antagonise a lot more.

His answer was to list some references which, by title, suggest that they
discuss the acquisition of fire and the evolution of human social process
and thought. But instead of a reference to authority, I'd like to know
what evidence suggests that humans became more antagonistic as a consequence
of learning how to control fire, or even simply _after_ learning how to
control fire. What kind of data are there?

I know that it is possible to study bones micrographically to
determine with reasonable certainty whether they have been gnawed and by
what kind of animal, or whether they have been butchered by knives, but
it's hard (for me at least) to turn this kind of evidence into a quantitative
measure of "antagonism" or even a probability of fighting. What other
kinds of evidence exist?

Chimpanzees go on war parties against neighbouring troops of chimpanzees,
and they don't control fire. Have they learned it from human warring habits?
I doubt it. Has the likelihood of such events increased since we learned
fire-control, independently of the increased likelihood that one would
expect from increasing population density and the use of higher rates of
energy consumption? How do we know whether the answer is yes or no?

I ask again, where do you get your data--or more precisely, what are the
data that lead to this conclusion, according to the sources you cite?

···

-------------
About prison:

It is an environement where we have big disturbances and we cannot control
efficiently these disturbances (can I say that in PCT: " we cannot control
efficiently"?).

More properly, in prison, some perceptions may stay far from their references.
I don't think you can call an immovable wall a "big disturbance." Perceptions
that require the prisoner to be outside the wall just cannot be obtained
by the prisoner's actions. And I think the word you want is "effectively"
rather than "efficiently." To say "efficiently" implies that control is
possible, but might be done in a better way.

-------------

you:

You find a lot more depressed animal (human included) in artificial
environement than in natural one.

If that is actually true, then one has to ask what it means to be "depressed."
What is going on in a "depressed" animal?

Me:just take the observable symtom, fatigue, no playfulness, no vivacity
necessary for survival... no need to look at mood

Yes, I know what it looks like. My question was what it means to be
"depressed." And what is going on in a "depressed" animal. You just listed
the same kind of thing I did, but you made no suggestion as to what may be
going on inside the animal. At least I made some speculative suggestions.

Helplesness doesn't exist in nature, evolution reject this kind of sickness,

Again, I should ask for data. I would have thought that a grub paralyzed
by a spider that lays its eggs in the grub's body would be rather helpless.
Is a coral polyp helpless that cannot swim away when a starfish comes? Has
evolution "rejected" grubs and coral?

Remember that evolution "rejects" only those behaviours that lead to the
elimination of whatever genes are associated with them. If some animals that
carry the gene find themselves in a helpless situation, but others do
rather better because of the gene, the gene will survive indefinitely.

Since we decided to
go against the law's of nature, we loose our real freedom.

You may "decide" to go against the laws of nature, but you can't actually
do it. That's the difference between laws of nature and social laws. If
I have lost freedom because I have decided to go and visit Alpha Centauri
but am unable to do it, then I guess I _have_ lost my "real freedom."
Our freedom has been limited ever since our first ancestor became a long
molecule. It hasn't been "lost." We never had it.

We were not
"suppose" to meet fire. It was an accident. I conceive humanity as an
accident.

Not "supposed" by whom?

One of the "laws" of probability is that if you wait long enough, anything
that can happen will happen. Somebody wins the lottery, but I probably
won't live long enough to be the one. If I did, it would be an accident
of the same kind, but much less likely, than that of humans learning to
control fire.

If you know the "anthropic principle" you might have another thought about
the "accidental" nature of the discovery of fire. Could we be having this
kind of discussion if fire control had been impossible to discover by
accident?

You:
If the imagined perception
moves toward the imagined future reference value, then the imagined action
is "good".

Me: Question: Is this If-then sentence a description of unworryness?

No. The text from which you extracted it was a proposal as to what "worrying"
might mean. "Unworryness," according to what I said then, would be a
condition in which all the imagined possible effects of action X
were better than all the imagined possible effects of action Y (and
of all the other actions you can imagine). It's where you can imagine
some possible effects of X being better and some worse than Y that you
get worrying.

You:
If this is a fair description of "worry" then I should think that a pre-fire
hunter could and would "worry" just as much as a modern business manager.
But of course, "worry" may be something quite different.

Me: I refer more to gatherer, than to hunter. Gatherer spend day's looking
for fruit, and also breaking bones for marrow. It is not dying of heart attack
at 31, having a binge of IBM share.

Gatherer goes looking for favourite fruit tree and finds nasty person/chimp/bird
has got there first. No fruit. Ten miles away is another nice fruit tree. Does
gatherer go there, when it might have been stripped as well, or does gatherer
get leaves which he doesn't like but which are nourishing. Does gatherer
worry about it? I think so. Does gatherer get a heart attack at 31? Probably
not, because he was killed by a tiger at 24.

Me:
I presume you don't want to enter in third force thing, but you
understand the meaning of "reference - will" for top control loop.

No I don't. It makes no sense. Is "-" a minus sign or an equivalence
sign or a "leads to" indicator or what? And I don't know what you mean
by "third force."

I can reask. Is someone with a minimum "reference - will" happier
than someone with a significantly higher "reference - will", for
the top layer of control loop.

Maybe when I understand what "reference - will" means, it might be possible
to suggest a line of enquiry, if not an answer.

----------------
One problem running through my reading of your postings is that there is
a lot of difference among the perceptions associated with different
emotions: fear, worry, anger, joy, happiness, contentment, anguish,
depression, concern, playfulness... If PCT is a correct theory of human
behaviour, these emotions must have distinctly different correlates
in some parameter of the behaviour of a control system hierarchy. It's
all very well to say that one gets angry or discontent or whatever when
some perception cannot be brought near its reference value, but what is
it that is different among these emotions? "Joy," for example, doesn't
feel the same as more "happiness." "Rage" isn't "more anger." "Concern"
isn't the same a "worry." There must be enough different combinations
of things going on that the perceptions can develop in these different ways.
So far as I know, nobody has looked seriously at this from a PCT viewpoint.
Bill Powers' writings are the only related material that I know.

---------------
Back to the initial topic.

Anyway, in my earlier posting, I presented a proposal for why increasing
technology had two contradictory effects--increased control of material
nature, and more social difficulty in control. I think that these ideas
may have some merit, and they support the kind of notion that you assert
to be fact. Maybe you could respond by suggesting how they fail to deal
with your issues?

Martin

[Cote_Remi]

From REMI COTE 960224.1030 EST

[to Martin Taylor 960222 17:30]

You:
What kind of data are there?

Has the likelihood of such events (war, organised agressivity, societal
aggressivity) increased since we learned fire-control, independently
of the increased likelihood that one would
expect from increasing population density and the use of higher rates of
energy consumption? How do we know whether the answer is yes or no?

Me:
Or even intelligence (IQ) can be responsible for more war, more conflict?
Maybe yes, maybe not, I thought it was worthed some reflexion.
When we are young teen, anything is compelling, anything is fascinating.
When we get older, we loose that kind of wandering. Imagination can
be a scientific tool. The choice of weapon (teck) is mine and yours.
Fire of imagination against fire of unknown.

···

-------------
You:
About prison:
More properly, in prison, some perceptions may stay far from their references.
I don't think you can call an immovable wall a "big disturbance."

Me: Yes if reference = freedom

you:
And I think the word you want is "effectively"
rather than "efficiently." To say "efficiently" implies that control is
possible, but might be done in a better way.

Me: I check before in dicti. and efficiently as a systemic conotation, and it
is caracterised by a loosness (like the steering of old '40 car) not caracterised
a total lack of control, which I think is impossible (according to me, and PCT)
-------------

you:

but you made no suggestion as to what may be
going on inside the animal. At least I made some speculative suggestions.

Me: I am sorry, I wanted to say that I don't know what is going on inside
animal head, so I rellied totally on observable symptomatology.

_______

You:
Is a coral polyp helpless that cannot swim away when a starfish comes? Has
evolution "rejected" grubs and coral?

Me : evolution doesn't reject Thompson gazel that feed cheeta, when Thompson
are eaten they feel helpless, Their brain is flood with chemical that inhibit
their behavior and I hope for them "relax" them, then they begin their last
journey.

You:
If some animals that
carry the gene find themselves in a helpless situation, but others do
rather better because of the gene, the gene will survive indefinitely.

Me: Here, I consider species as a whole.
__________

You:
Our freedom has been limited ever since our first ancestor became a long
molecule. It hasn't been "lost." We never had it.

Me: Freedom was a wrong word, sometimes I inconsciously use these word
to exacerbate antagonism against me, to make it spicy. I am sorry
I will try to behave by now.
And by the same token, would'nt have to reply as much as I do now.
____________

You:
If I did, it would be an accident of the same kind, but much less likely,
than that of humans learning to control fire.

Me: the probability to meet fire and then develop conscience is not likely
but at this lotery, only the winner are conscious that they are winning.

You:
If you know the "anthropic principle" you might have another thought about
the "accidental" nature of the discovery of fire. Could we be having this
kind of discussion if fire control had been impossible to discover by
accident?

Me: if fire control had been impossible to discover by accident, we would'nt
had to have this discussion, because their would'nt be any human (sapiens)
on earth. You can say the opposite, but cannot proove youre right. I thing
that this fact only is worth underlying. For me it is a good alternative
to the no explanation side of the kind: if big brain, then technology.
An this alternative shed a new light on old and contemporary human output.
_____________________

You:

Does gatherer worry about it? I think so. Does gatherer get a heart
attack at 31? Probably not, because he was killed by a tiger at 24.

Me:
Maybe you are right about dying at 24, or 28 (first child at 14
then at 14 he can have his own) if everybody dies at 24 the species
won't survive. I don't think there is worry, because if there is
not enought food, individual perrish. So individual don't rely
on noradrenaline for food, because he would'nt survive in the long
term (6 month of dayly adrenaline shot and you are dead), so my
guess is that you are wrong about worring for food.

------------------
You:
No I don't. It makes no sense. Is "-" a minus sign or an equivalence
sign or a "leads to" indicator or what? And I don't know what you mean
by "third force."

Me: "-" = minus sign. I am sorry, I thought it was clear since
it is a part of control loop, ref - input, for higher level I thought
we could generalise: ref - will or want or desire.

-----
Me:

I can reask. Is someone with a minimum "reference - will" happier
than someone with a significantly higher "reference - will", for
the top layer of control loop.

----------------
You
One problem running through my reading of your postings is that there is
a lot of difference among the perceptions associated with different
emotions: fear, worry, anger, joy, happiness, contentment, anguish,
depression, concern, playfulness...

Me: to look at emotion from PCT perspective, other theorie gain sense
Lazarus theorie for instance, that consider neg emotion as a lost
of control (in his dicti, not PCT dicti)

---------------

Anyway, in my earlier posting, I presented a proposal for why increasing
technology had two contradictory effects--increased control of material
nature, and more social difficulty in control. I think that these ideas
may have some merit, and they support the kind of notion that you assert
to be fact. Maybe you could respond by suggesting how they fail to deal
with your issues?

Me : these Idea don't fail to deal with my issue (Goudsblom Theory), I am
surprise that you don't see it. I can add: increase control of material
bring dependancy over tech and those who monopolised it, so it bring
increase in social dependance. My god am I bright or what, you can
write an article with that stuff, that I just give to you generosly
as a sign of antiantagonism.

Do you know what Lucid dreaming about?

--------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To [From Bill Powers (960223.0630 MST)]

I read your text, the problem when you toss away the principle that:
"you cannot proove that a theory is right, and you can only proove
that you just cannot falsified it", is a moral one. Some pionner
work can only be "slowed" by these principle. Who care right now,
if in a hundred years, researcher or robot found some if-then
principle embedded in the brain. My point is that your way
of doing science is not bad, but neither mine. I am sorry if I
suggested that your way of doing science is bad. Maybe, to much
cafeine... Dam technology, of course teck bring decaf, but it is
not that addictive
_______________________
You
If such people were on this list, do you think I should keep quiet about
this subject?

Me: I wanted to underlined that paleontology don't rely on written
document. And you previously said that you can rely only to
written history, document, to know what "really" happen, in the past.

But I admit that I should go back to the socratic style. And I suggest
it to everybody, it reduce misunderstanding, enhance communicativity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To Mary Powers (960221)

You:
I think the key here is not the size of the discrepancy between
desired and actual perceptions, or the ability to brood about it
in imagination, but rather the inability to close the gap. And
one of the main reasons for having a large discrepancy that one
can't do something about is conflict - having goals such that
reducing a discrepancy in one leads to making another, opposite
goal, further from satisfaction. One way to deal with this sort
of painful situation is to numb it down and be depressed.

(The other main reason for having a large discrepancy between
reality and desire is the environment in which one lives - too
cold, not enough food, etc. And the human solution to that is -
voila! - technology).

Me: Your comment gave me insight. Technology is responsible for
more and more conflict (escalation), without teck, no escalation.
And craziness (what a bad word) is due to escalation in rumination
of bad emotion and idea, of paranoia, of "no future", etc...
Thank You!

You:
Remi - how much of your negativity about life in a technological
world is due to being a therapist spending a lot of time with
people who are in conflict and depressed?

Me: Don't worry about me, my patient don't bother me. One of
my patient killed herself two week ago, my first thought was
"would I lost my job", At least I am honest...

[_Martin_Taylor]

[Martin Taylor 960226 13:30]

REMI COTE 960224.1030

Remi, it's very difficult to have a coherent discussion with you if you
keep not answering questions intended to further our understanding.

You stated as a fact that human antagonism increased as a consequence of
learning to control fire. I asked where you got your data to support this
statement, while at the same time proposing a PCT-based reason why it might
be true. You responded by referencing four papers, none easy to get. I asked
what data those people used to support the statement, and you respond:

Or even intelligence (IQ) can be responsible for more war, more conflict?
Maybe yes, maybe not, I thought it was worthed some reflexion.
When we are young teen, anything is compelling, anything is fascinating.
When we get older, we loose that kind of wandering. Imagination can
be a scientific tool. The choice of weapon (teck) is mine and yours.
Fire of imagination against fire of unknown.

How does this advance the discussion? Can we try again?

1. What evidence--or even what _kind_ of evidence--is there to suggest (not
even to prove) that human agression increased after the discovery of fire
control?

2. If the evidence for (1) is convincing, what evidence is there that the
increased agression was a _consequence_ of learning to control fire?

Anyway, in my earlier posting, I presented a proposal for why increasing
technology had two contradictory effects--increased control of material
nature, and more social difficulty in control. I think that these ideas
may have some merit, and they support the kind of notion that you assert
to be fact. Maybe you could respond by suggesting how they fail to deal
with your issues?

Me : these Idea don't fail to deal with my issue (Goudsblom Theory), I am
surprise that you don't see it.

I'm glad you think my ideas do deal with your issue. Why would you think I
don't see it? Why otherwise would I have mentioned them? What I see is that
you totally ignored the ideas as if _you_ thought they were irrelevant to
your issue. It would be nice, just once in a while, to consider the
implications, if ideas are truly relevant.

To recap: Technology increases the "range of perturbation" of action,
increasing both the number of people influenced and the degree of influence
on a given person. It makes control harder for the people perturbed. To the
degree that they have access to the same technology, their efforts to control
have an increased range of perturbation also, making it harder for the first
person to control. If one person has a better access to technology than
another, the first person has a greater range of perturbation, and can
have a greater influence on the other's actions (as, for example, the
boss does over the employee).

Further: An increased availability of technology increases control over
material things, thus allowing for increased population. Increased
population density increases the range of perturbation, decreasing the
control individuals have in respect of social interactions, except when
there is an unbalanced access to technology, as above. If there is a
balanced access to technology among people that influence each other,
the increased range of perturbation can, beyond some threshold value,
lead to uncontrolled escalation of output--fighting and war.

I said most of this earlier, but you chose to ignore it, which is why I
asked why you thought it did not address your issue.

···

----------------

Does gatherer worry about it? I think so. Does gatherer get a heart
attack at 31? Probably not, because he was killed by a tiger at 24.

Me:
Maybe you are right about dying at 24, or 28 (first child at 14
then at 14 he can have his own) if everybody dies at 24 the species
won't survive. I don't think there is worry, because if there is
not enought food, individual perrish. So individual don't rely
on noradrenaline for food, because he would'nt survive in the long
term (6 month of dayly adrenaline shot and you are dead), so my
guess is that you are wrong about worring for food.

What on earth are you trying to say? That it is impossible to worry,
because if there isn't enough food you will die and if there is you
won't die, so no cause for worry? Isn't is just possible that you might
worry about the possibility of dying of starvation but not die?

Anyway, my discussion of worrying had absolutely nothing to do with dying.
In my "worrying gatherer" example, both his choices led to good nourishment.
And millionaire may worry about whether his proposed investment will gain
$10,000 or lose $10,000 without him worrying about starving. I see no
difference between the two situations. Will the gatherer's "investment"
of a 10-mile walk bring him a nice profit (good fruit), or should he refuse
to make the investment and stick to nutritious but dull leaves? Should
the millionaire invest his $10,000 or just leave it to gather interest
in the dull bank? Who worries more? Why is there a difference?

------------------------

One problem running through my reading of your postings is that there is
a lot of difference among the perceptions associated with different
emotions: fear, worry, anger, joy, happiness, contentment, anguish,
depression, concern, playfulness...

Me: to look at emotion from PCT perspective, other theorie gain sense
Lazarus theorie for instance, that consider neg emotion as a lost
of control (in his dicti, not PCT dicti)

If you are going to quote the first half of my statement, why ignore the
reason for my saying it? I asked not whether emotion had anything to do
with control or loss of it, but how the different kinds of emotion are
distinguished from one another. "Loss of control" or "lack of success
in control" is a one-dimensional construct. It is not enough.

-------------------

I can add: increase control of material
bring dependancy over tech and those who monopolised it, so it bring
increase in social dependance. My god am I bright or what, you can
write an article with that stuff, that I just give to you generosly
as a sign of antiantagonism.

Are you restating my theme of "range of perturbation," here? It looks like
it, since what you say is one small aspect of the implications. Yes, I
guess you must be bright, if you are able to write an article based on
self-evident propositions. Now how about dealing with some of the suggestions
I put forward, rather than just re-stating minor implications?

But it would be much better to know whether there is a real effect, before
speculating too far about the reasons for the effect. And for that I go back
to questions (1) and (2).

------------------------

I'm trying to stick to what I perceive to be your thesis: That people in a
technological society are more aggressive and more depressed than humans
were before the discovery of fire control, and that the increased aggression
and depression are direct results of increased use of technology.

Is that the issue you are trying to address? If so, let's continue to
examine data and mechanism. If not, could you give a clear statement of
what you see your issue to be?

Martin

[Cote_Remi]

REMI COTE 960226.2230

[Martin Taylor 960226 13:30]

You
1. What evidence--or even what _kind_ of evidence--is there to suggest (not
even to prove) that human agression increased after the discovery of fire
control?

Me: Without fire >> no technology & no dependance from technology & from
people or group that posses technology. Without technology >> less tool
for violence and agression. Without technology there is less occasion
for violence and conflict, every one do their thing in their territory.
But with technology, the territory border expand in the mind of the
creator of technology. If one got the monopoly on some weapon, like
archery, he can just forget about other's territory, until someone
else fond out about the arc, etc...
This is all phaseology, process with stage with some constant like
tendancy to moke monopoly, neologism => macroteckonomic. This all
story, maybe not convincing, but I can use the gist of it, to built
other psycho-social theory, and without entering the slippery
subject of fire-domestication.
I got no evidence, no proove. Simply story that make sense.

You:
2. If the evidence for (1) is convincing, what evidence is there that the
increased agression was a _consequence_ of learning to control fire?

Me: Without fire, no possibility of weapon = no accelerated increased in
technology.

You:

Anyway, in my earlier posting, I think that these ideas
may have some merit, and they support the kind of notion that you assert
to be fact. >

Me : these Idea don't fail to deal with my issue (Goudsblom Theory), I am
surprise that you don't see it.

you:
I'm glad you think my ideas do deal with your issue. Why would you think I
don't see it? Why otherwise would I have mentioned them?

Me:
Because you asked me:"Maybe you could respond by suggesting how they fail
to deal with your issues?" Why did you use this negative form then?

···

-------------------------
you:(after having explained the gist of your idea)
I said most of this earlier, but you chose to ignore it, which is why I
asked why you thought it did not address your issue.

Me: I didn't "choose" to ignore it, I am thinking about it, but thinking
take time. And I am not shure I can addup or contribute to it, but maybe
if I try.

----------------
You:
What on earth are you trying to say? That it is impossible to worry,
because if there isn't enough food you will die and if there is you
won't die, so no cause for worry? Isn't is just possible that you might
worry about the possibility of dying of starvation but not die?

Me: look at documentary (I do) about the Serengetti, the "wild" life
is not that wild. It is a system. We life in a big cage. Natural animal
don't worry often when they are at their natural place, they rarely worry.
Because if they do, it means that they are inadapted.

You:
Anyway, my discussion of worrying had absolutely nothing to do with dying.
In my "worrying gatherer" example, both his choices led to good nourishment.
And millionaire may worry about whether his proposed investment will gain
$10,000 or lose $10,000 without him worrying about starving. I see no
difference between the two situations. Will the gatherer's "investment"
of a 10-mile walk bring him a nice profit (good fruit), or should he refuse
to make the investment and stick to nutritious but dull leaves? Should
the millionaire invest his $10,000 or just leave it to gather interest
in the dull bank? Who worries more? Why is there a difference?

Me: I don't follow, can you reask in an operational way?
------------------------

One problem running through my reading of your postings is that there is
a lot of difference among the perceptions associated with different
emotions: fear, worry, anger, joy, happiness, contentment, anguish,
depression, concern, playfulness...

Me: to look at emotion from PCT perspective, other theorie gain sense
Lazarus theorie for instance, that consider neg emotion as a lost
of control (in his dicti, not PCT dicti)

You:
If you are going to quote the first half of my statement, why ignore the
reason for my saying it? I asked not whether emotion had anything to do
with control or loss of it, but how the different kinds of emotion are
distinguished from one another. "Loss of control" or "lack of success
in control" is a one-dimensional construct. It is not enough.

Me: I am quoting to avoid repeating what you elegantly phrase. English
is not the mother of my tongue. I know that emotion can be subdivise,
negative emotion = loss of control, positive emotion = gain of control
And all other emotion can be place on a continuum between these pole.

And we can associate emotion with gratification involve, thirst, hunger
pain, love, sexual pleasure all place on the same continuum...

-------------------

But it would be much better to know whether there is a real effect, before
speculating too far about the reasons for the effect. And for that I go back
to questions (1) and (2).

------------------------
You:
I'm trying to stick to what I perceive to be your thesis: That people in a
technological society are more aggressive and more depressed than humans
were before the discovery of fire control, and that the increased aggression
and depression are direct results of increased use of technology.

Is that the issue you are trying to address?

Me: yes it was, but don't forget that we talking about hominid not human.
Human race appear well after domestication of fire.

You:
If so, let's continue to examine data and mechanism:

Me: you will have to explain or define what you mean by that. Data?
Mechanism. And if you have problem contacting Goudsblom I can give
coordinate. But He was more active in the 80', The mechanism of monopolisation
have been studied a lot by his team, and by Elias.

To recap: I suggested to the list a reflection about fire that bring technology
that bring dependance, that bring more intra and inter species as epiphenomene.

You tell that you lead, some time ago a discussion about these topic, and
that you are interested in discussing it seriously.

If my recap is good, than I accept this proposition, and I promes I will
manage to allow you 120 minutes a week of my precious time.

[_Martin_Taylor]

[Martin Taylor 960229 16:20]

REMI COTE 960226.2230

You
1. What evidence--or even what _kind_ of evidence--is there to suggest (not
even to prove) that human agression increased after the discovery of fire
control?

I got no evidence, no proove. Simply story that make sense.

Good. That answers the question I posed when you asserted it as fact. I
agree that the story makes some sense. Where might we find evidence?
I suggest looking at other primates that use less technology than we do,
as well as at the fossil evidence. If a change can be found in the fossils
at the time that camp-fires started to be used, it would be interesting.
One can tell things from the scratches on bone, and from the ligament
connections. Whether one could tell enough, that's another question.

You:
2. If the evidence for (1) is convincing, what evidence is there that the
increased agression was a _consequence_ of learning to control fire?

Me: Without fire, no possibility of weapon = no accelerated increased in
technology.

I think Chimpanzees use weapons in their war-raids, don't they? Maybe I'm
wrong here, but they could, even if they don't.

One might ask, supposing the plausible story is true, whether it is not
humanities "increased aggession" that led to the discovery of weaponry
rather than the reverse. In PCT terms, "aggression" might be translated
into increased control system gain, which leads to increased output under
conditions of conflict. "PCT-conflict" is not the same as "conflict" in
normal language. PCT-conflict doesn't mean "fighting," but the attempt of
two control systems to control their perceptions by influencing the same
environmental variable at the same time.

Since they can't both bring their errors to zero at the same time, their
outputs tend to increase. The one whose output increases faster, and
eventually reaches a higher value, will probably win. Higher gain means
faster increase of output, and is seen as aggressiveness. Higher strength
is separate from higher gain, and if the stronger is also stubborn and
continues to try to control the perception that is conflicted, the stronger
will win, even if it is the slower.

The faster (higher gain) system may win even if it is weaker, if Rick Marken
is right about the output function being S-shaped rather than monotonic.
Having been "shocked" early in the conflict, the stronger might seem to
give up despite having a continuing large error.

Me : these Idea don't fail to deal with my issue (Goudsblom Theory), I am
surprise that you don't see it.

you:
I'm glad you think my ideas do deal with your issue. Why would you think I
don't see it? Why otherwise would I have mentioned them?

Me:
Because you asked me:"Maybe you could respond by suggesting how they fail
to deal with your issues?" Why did you use this negative form then?

Perhaps there's a language issue here. It was my impression that you thought
that my ideas were irrelevant to your issue, which is why I asked why you
thought that they failed to address it. That's the negative form. It
asked why you were negative.

You:
What on earth are you trying to say? That it is impossible to worry,
because if there isn't enough food you will die and if there is you
won't die, so no cause for worry? Isn't is just possible that you might
worry about the possibility of dying of starvation but not die?

Me: look at documentary (I do) about the Serengetti, the "wild" life
is not that wild. It is a system. We life in a big cage. Natural animal
don't worry often when they are at their natural place, they rarely worry.
Because if they do, it means that they are inadapted.

I don't buy that. But I can buy the speculation that they may not worry
(how could one know whether they do or not?). If they don't, I might
speculate that it is because they don't have Bill Powers' "program level"
and higher controlled perceptions. My "story" of what it means to worry
requires that it be a facet of program level perceptual control, and my
example "gatherer" was a pre-fire humanoid, not a Serengeti antelope.

···

------------

Will the gatherer's "investment"
of a 10-mile walk bring him a nice profit (good fruit), or should he refuse
to make the investment and stick to nutritious but dull leaves? Should
the millionaire invest his $10,000 or just leave it to gather interest
in the dull bank? Who worries more? Why is there a difference?

Me: I don't follow, can you reask in an operational way?

I don't know what you don't follow, so I'll try a different tack. My
speculation about "worrying" was that it required that there were at least
two imagined future courses of action in a situation, and at least one of
the two courses had two possible imagined outcomes, one of which was
worse and one was better than an imagined outcome of the other course.

The gatherer could walk 10 miles to the other fruit tree, and if another
animal or bird had eaten all the fruit, the effort would have been wasted,
but if not, the effort would have been very much worthwhile. Or the gatherer
could stay where he was and eat leaves that are quite nutritional but not
much fun. The millionaire could invest in a risky adventure, that might
lose all the money or that might double it quickly, or he could leave it
in a bank where it is guaranteed to earn 5%. I ask about these two people:
"Who worries more? Why is there a difference?"

I'm trying to stick to what I perceive to be your thesis: That people in a
technological society are more aggressive and more depressed than humans
were before the discovery of fire control, and that the increased aggression
and depression are direct results of increased use of technology.

Is that the issue you are trying to address?

Me: yes it was, but don't forget that we talking about hominid not human.
Human race appear well after domestication of fire.

I don't think any part of the discussion hinges on the labelling of different
kinds of primates. It hinges on whether the control of fire (technology)
leads necessarily to increased aggression and depression in whoever
manages to make the discovery, and whoever uses technology. If the story
is true, it will be true on any planet on which we may eventually discover
life, if they have technology. So human-humanoid makes no difference.

You:
If so, let's continue to examine data and mechanism:

Me: you will have to explain or define what you mean by that. Data?
Mechanism.

Data means observations that bear on the issue. Forensic science applied
to fossils, for example. Observations of other species, especially those
near to technological development. Mechanism means how things work. What
influences what, and to what extent. How different influences interact.
When discussing human interactions on a list devoted to Perceptual Control
Theory, "mechanism" normally relates to the behaviour of control systems,
whether living, engineered, or simulated.

To recap: I suggested to the list a reflection about fire that bring technology
that bring dependance, that bring more intra and inter species as epiphenomene.

"Dependence?" I'm not sure what you want to imply. If you mean that most of
us wouldn't survive long if we were dumped without clothes or tools in the
African savanna, then I'd have to agree with you. We, each individually, have
learned to survive in the environments that we have encountered. I don't think
I would survive long without money in the downtown streets, either, never
having known what it is like to have to live in poverty. But you can argue
that the other way, too. I can survive quite well in the computer-based
technological environment that has grown up at the same time as I have,
whereas I think your pre-fire hunter-gatherer would have a difficult time
in this environment. He would be dependent on being able to find certain
kinds of trees and food animals, while avoiding predator animals--not
viscious automobiles, which might give him a lot of problems.

Reorganization theory in PCT suggests that _all_ organisms are dependent
on their environment, not just humans in a technological environment. Their
reorganization has developed a control hierarchy that acts appropriately
much of the time to control perceptions that relate to environmental
variables, and that lead to healthy stability of the intrinsic (internal
biochemistry, for example) variables when they are controlled. If any living
creature gets put into a substantially different environment, those control
actions won't be effective in controlling the perceptual variables, and
even if they are, the intrinsic variables might well go wrong in the new
environment.

I promes I will manage to allow you 120 minutes a week of my precious time.

That's a perceptual control of your own. You will do that because it helps
you to bring some other perception(s) nearer its (their) reference level(s).
I enjoy such discussions because they help me to understand what may be
going on inside living organisms. That's one of the perceptions that I
control by devoting my precious time to this sort of thing instead of
getting on with editing the PCT issue of IJHCS, among other things.

Martin