[From Bruce Abbott (960907.1455 EST)]
Dag Forssell (960907.0900) --
Bruce Abbott and many before him and many to come will continue to point to
people who sense that people are indeed goal driven etc. But it is a
mistake in this forum to suggest that we be impressed by such simple,
elementary, commonplace observation and consider it to be good enough to
build on. Unless there is an explicit, correct explanation of perceptual
feedback control, we do not have anything to build on, quite the contrary --
what we have is yet another authority who thinks he or she knows something.
Dag, no one is suggesting that "we be impressed by such simple, elementary,
commonplace observation," nor is anyone suggesting that we "consider it to
be good enough to build on." What I _am_ suggesting (and have provided the
evidence to support) is that Herbert Simon, writing in 1968, was among those
who recognized that the complex patterns of behavior evidenced by purposive
systems reflect more the complexity of the environments in which they
operate than of the systems themselves. Whereas you evidently find this
threatening (for reasons about which I can only guess), I see this as
providing another source confirming what PCT has to say about such matters.
Indeed, as I mentioned in another post, it was Simon's book that helped to
prepare me for what B:CP had to offer.
In scientific work it is considered proper form to acknowledge all those who
expressed a particular idea that one is now repeating; in a paper I might
make the following statement:
The complexity of the behavior of a purposive system reveals more about the
complexity of the environment in which the system must operate than of the
system itself, which indeed may be quite simple (Powers, 1973; Simon, 1969).
In bringing up Simon's thinking I am merely pointing out that this fact has
been discovered and discussed by several thinkers and giving credit where
credit is due.
In this forum, for the purpose of spreading a correct understanding of what
behavior is and how it works, we are better off building on people who are
new to the field and do not claim prior understanding, but who are curious
for some reason -- dissatisfaction with something. Bruce came to study PCT
because of dissatisfaction.
This sounds to me more like a prescription for building a religion than a
science. That therapy guy who borrowed from PCT, altered it into something
else, then had all those with variant ideas cast out of his institute comes
to mind.
By the way, Bruce, you post like a PCTer most
of the time nowadays. (This last post seems a throwback.)
If that post seem like a throwback to you, it is because you didn't like the
message. What about that message disturbed you?
Regards,
Bruce