[From Bruce Buchanan 950224.15:30 EST]
[Bill Powers (950221.2210 MST)] writes:
. . .generalizations like "time-binding," higher order representations,
consistency of behavior,"adaptive","Integration" ... seem exactly the
vague kind that I have labored to avoid all my life. They are
generalizations, dead ends that lead nowhere, platitudes, cliches. They
sound like explanations, but in truth they avoid any substantive
explanation of anything.
Well, I did not write thinking that the ideas I had to discuss, albeit in
general terms and inadequately, were entirely limited to conceptual content
with which Bill had already been long familiar, and although this may be
possible I am not convinced they are exactly the same ideas (or nonideas).
While I also tried to include - not reinvent - PCT concepts which would
provide some common ground, it seems clear to me that some basic
differences of focus and interpretations of language - of perception -
still get in the way of common understanding.
Among my purposes has been an examination of the implications of the logic
of retroactive effects, which still seems to me to provide a way to
understand how time becomes part of biological functions, without which
relationships between levels and organization could not occur But it
seems clear that without a clearer articulation of this in more specific
detail the general ideas are not communicated or understandable, and of
course even if understood they may not been found valid. However, since the
idea involved seems to me basic to all more specific and derived
tendencies, purposes and values, it also seems to me worth exploration. At
the least it would be a serious loss if words which deal with important
conditions and relationships are always to be interpreted to be without
meaning.
So I am going to drop this for now as an enquiry for point-by-point debate,
which too easily loses an intended thread, and perhaps educate myself more
adequately on what may be required for a more "substantive explanation" of
values, their relation to the fact and experience of time, and the
neurophysiology of foresight, etc. Needless to say I would be pleased to
hear from anyone with suggestions for this which are not too far off the
principles of PCT (for I do know there is a lot of garbage in this field).
Until next time!
Cheers and best wishes.
Bruce B.