From[Bill Williams 10 May 2004 1:30 PM CST]
[From Bill Powers (2004.06.10.0641 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2004.06.10.01.22--
Bill W., I wouldn't worry too much about all this flurry. I imagine
that something happened on his trip that bothered Bill P. The tempest
will blow over, as usual, if we refuse to continue to stir the pot
(or boil the kettle, whichever seems blackest). Let's just enjoy the
I agree. What happened on the trip was finally admitting that certain
things I had been wanting were not going to happen, so I could quit wasting
my efforts to make them happen.
When reason fails, withdraw temporarily, I think, at least from the
thread that evokes interpersonal conflict. (But don't withdraw if the
conflict is over matters that can have a rational resolution). Do as
Bill P. says he wants to do, and get on with developing PCT, rather
than responding to his attacks.
Funny how everyone feels attacked while failing to perceive his own words
Yes, it is really funny until someone gets hurt, and then it is hilarious.
( I am borrowing this from Michelle )
I would love to get these discussions on the road to a rational resolution.
I would like to know how Bill Williams deals with the anatomy of the
Bill seems to have me confused with Marc Abrams. I don't pretend to have even an interest in the "anatomy of the nervous system. And, consequently have never myself had any criticism to make of Bill Powers' treatment of such issues. I am willing to listen to others, to some extent, who have criticisms of Bill Powers' position, but this willing to listen, to some extent, to critics shouldn't be taken to be an indication that I necessarily hold any opinions about such issues myself. So, I am sure I don't have any idea what Bill Powers is talking about.
But he never says what is wrong with my approach other than
to call it names and cite (without details) things he has read.
Once again, Bill Powers is making an absurd claim. When he says that I have "never" supported a point of disagreement with Powers with any detail. Let's label this comment ( CD.001 Critical Detail number 1 ) If Bill Powers can not remember my having previously presented a some fact or some rational argument that is a statement about Bill Powers' perceptions. Other people see things differently-- Marc Abrams sees me as a defender rather than a critic of Powers work. But, to refute this "never" claim. I did present a data table once. The data table indicated that net investment fluctuated markedly over the business cycle. So, Powers is resorting to a misstatement. I have difficulty understanding how he justifies again and again saying stuff that obviously isn't true.
He'll calm down eventually,
Perhaps, but I don't think that the level of emotionality is the source of the problem. Bill Powers statements such as the above CD.001 are so obviously disconnected from the reality that I perceive and can document, as I have CD.001 that it seems to me that Bill Powers has to find some way of connecting to some extent to reality before a discussion can approach some measure of rationality.
and PCT is too strong for a few
ill-thought words to damage.
Calling references to perception "sophistology" seems like a pretty good
start to me.
I myself would think that discarding the arguments like CD.001, or describing me as a 'poor fool' might also be inorder, but I have come to regard the _ad homenin_ approach to argumentation as one of Bill Powers' innate traits. But, we probably don't need to get into a discussion of how one comes by one's innate traits right now.
I'm not quite ready to calm down when that sort of thing,
together with calling open-loop computations "control", is going on.
Actually Bill Powers is mistaken here. The computation that he describes is not as he says, "open-loop." And, furthermore I never described that portion of the program in terms of control. The control in my program is located in a quite different routine that Bill Powers recognizes as a control routine. So,
we are once again confronted by a Bill Powers argument, in which he complains in effect that, "I am fucking the pig, and you made me do it." I used to think that when Bill Powers did this that it bothered me. Lately, that is the last year or so I have come to realize that I was being silly-- silly that is in thinking that there was any causal connection, of the usual sort between what Bill Powers did, like calling me a "poor fool" and my emotional state. I was mistakenly attributing my emotional state to what Bill Powers said-- now this really was foolish. However, since I have become more enlightened in control theory terms, I find Bill Powers' approach to discussion hilarious.
Incidentally, I have held back from providing program code for controlling
(actually controlling, not just computing) equal spacing among marchers.
The point is not whether I know how to solve Bill's problems:
Maybe the point might be whether Bill Powers can say, "counter control." Over the past months who is under-going reorganization. Is it Bill Powers or is it Bill Williams? Obviously, it is Bill Powers. Is he reorganizing in a way that is guided by intelligence-- not altogether. Part of the evidence to this effect might be the fact that we are conducting this exchange on a thread labeled "more slamming doors."
it's whether Bill does. I've given enough hints, but you have to believe in > control of perception before you can take advantage of them.
Oh, I believe in controlling perceptions-- no question about that. What do you think I have been upto the last few months on the CSGnet? My use of "mirroring" has been an exercise in imitation-- an imitation of your behavior. And, some people, but not you of course, have found it enormously funny.
However , with regard to Tinker Bell and believing in the control of perception. As a matter of fact today in a post in response to Fred Nichols I described my use of the control of perception in the context of flight instruction. My use of the control of perception preceded my encounter with Bill Powers. So, his assertion that I don't believe in the control of perception is quite mistaken.
Marching bands don't seem to have anything obvious to do with economics,
Actually what I had in mind was the way that small business seem to set their prices. They either call around to see what their rivals are charging, or they send people out to "shop" their rivals. Once they have this information then they think about what they ought to charge. There are lot of complications involved. The marching band or military squad forming up was merely a readily recognizable example to communicate the sort of process that I was interested in modeling.
but if Bill sees a connection, march on.
I think Bill Powers is exhibiting a sort of stereo-typical type thinking here. Why should an economist spend all the time thinking about economic issues? Bill Powers, however, is projecting this perception of my departing from an expected role behavior as a sly way of advancing his effort to prove that Bill Williams is a poor fool who ought to know better that get outside his field of experience and think about things like airplanes and marching bands, and heaven forbid-- human beings. Civilization might fall if people don't stick to their appointed work benches.
Just make sure it's a giant leap in the right direction.
Eventually I expect that I am going to get blamed for having somehow made Bill Powers say, that Rick Marken's efforts to create an economic model was, "a giant leap in the wrong direction." And, maybe I am to blame, if I had been more interested in making the effort to critique Rick's attempt to create an economic model ( notice I avoid describing it as an economic model ) then it wouldn't have been left to Bill Powers to do what I thought was a very through well though out examination of what Rick had failed to do. So, by all means lets try to orient our leaps in the right direction. And, further more, lets be careful that when we make our giant leaps, we first check to see if the door hasn't been slammed in our face. Giant leaps in the direction of slammed doors is evidence of poor preflight planning.
Funny how the guy who is upside down in the ditch, is just full of ideas.
In real marching groups, no person can see the person behind him.
Actually this isn't true. In my marching band there was this really cute girl.
Need I explain? Now granted I got yelled at for not doing keeping position like I was supposed to, but Bill Powers doesn't seem to be altogether fully informed about what human beings are capable of.
And another: when a drill sergeant wants a phalanx of soldiers to
achieve equal arm's-length spacing left and right, he gives the order
"dress right" or "dress left", but not both. To do both would be redundant.
But, of course. But, unlike this case, the people in my program have those chalk marks to guide on. The only reason Bill Powers brings up stuff like this is make it look like Bill Williams really is the "poor fool" that Powers claims he is. Like I say, this sort of stuff, used to annoy me. Now I think it is funny. Remember when I set Bill Powers off, by my inventive misspelling of professor Bruun's name? Bill Powers seems to think that it is his appointed task in life to do stuff like "Tie your shoe laces." I am told that in Germany people will tell each other "Polish you car."
Behavior is the process of controlling one's own perception, not
controlling what a disembodied observer floating high above the crowd
perceives. Hint, hint, wink, nudge.
For Bill Powers' information-- my shoe laces are currently tied, and the car, well best not to worry about the car. And, I recently bought shoe polish-- so maybe eventually I will polish my shoes.
Strange that despite Bill Powers having has set out down a solitary path, he still seems caught up an effort to control other people. And, I find it puzzling why he goes out of his way to misrepresent other people while he is marching off. Like his repeated claim that I "never" have provided any detailed evidence to support what I say. However, knowing Bill Powers as I do
I can expect based upon a great deal of passed experience that he will attempt to deny having said stuff that he said-- when it Bill Powers finds it not to his advantage for Bill Powers to remember stuff he simply doesn't remember stuff. Does he consciously choose to do so? Is he aware of what he is doing? If you ask him directly he will deny having said stuff that he knows isn't true. But, that doesn't in any way change the fact that he says stuff that obviously isn't true. In the past I have found that when you confront Bill Powers with his having said stuff that isn't true, he evades, denies, or somehow manages to avoid admitting what he is obviously doing. Now, Bill Powers above says that he would love to come to a rational resolution. A first step to demonstrate something of a commitment to such an aspiration would be for him to admit that he frequently in the course of argument mixes into his argument claims that are obviously not true.