Bill,
HB : Well some crirtics of my “American” language are accepted. I must say that I wrote message very fast, what was obviously a mistake. But considering that you answered to me, it’s obviously that you understood what I was writing about. So complaints about understanding my whole writings are not accepted.
It’s not important HOW text it’s writen, but WHAT it is written and how people understand it.
BTW. You were the first in my 20 years of presence in PCT who complaint about my language. Even Rick didn’t do that. So you can see how low you fall seeking for arguments in your favour in our conversation. Obviously you stayed without any serious arguments to prove your nonsense BLCT (Bill Leach Control Theory).
HB : If you wouldn’t understand WHAT I wrote you would probably demand some explanations about what I wrote, but you didn’t. So I assumed you understood. That’s the point of mutual wrirings. To understand each other.
HB : And from your writings it’s quite clear that you understood what I wrote. Obviously text was written in understandable form. The same was when we talked in private. You never gave a complaint about not understanding something. Well Erving even once concluded that he understands more clearly PCT reading what I wrote. Â
But that’s not the case with YOUR LANGUAGE. Whatever you wrote is full of confussion and mess so I even don’tunderstand what you wanted to say. Only some phylosophy and talking nonsense !!! Did you wanted to say that :
BL : ….most any language different wording can express exactly the same meaning as other wordings.
HB : Did you wanted to say that interpretation of different perceptions can be “exactly” the same ? And you gave example of mathematics how it works ? Did I understand right ?
HB : Well as far as mathematics is concerned I gave experiment which will show you that even numbers do not have the same meaning when perceived. Not mentioning what kind of confussion about “the same meaning” exist on other scientific fields like sociology, psychology, even astronomy (different theories of spece) or even physics (different theories of atom structure). It seems also that you don’t distinguish between physics and mathematics.
HB: Language is not the reason why we are in conflict. There are obviously other reasons why you don’t understand PCT.
The reason why you don’t understand PCT is prossibly because you don’t understand PCT research and probably because you don’t understand how organisms function. Both you and Rick were wrong how “comparator” function so I assume you don’t understand how nervous system function.
BL : I do hope that others will not be too offended by my response to this post.
HB : Whom can you offened ? You are anyway “empty talker”. Analyzing your answers to my post I saw just “empty talkings”. No arguments (evidences) to support your “empty talkings”. You told exactly nothing. Not mentioning the confussion and mess you made. Without ecidences your “emoty talkings” look like : "Because I BIG Bill Leach said so it si so. Sorry to say but you are even more ignorant then I thought.
If you want to talk with me I want ARGUMENTS. You understand what that is ? Could somebody on this forum explain to Bill Leach how scientific discussion should look like. PhD’s on forum. We need your help ? This is not a pub. I want you to support your “empty wording” with Tests, experiments and real Life examples which will show whether your emotional talkings are right or wrong. And we can see also which theory is right or wrong.
HBÂ : If you’ll claim that my talkings show ignorancy I want eviedences which will support your “empty talkings”. That means that I want at least my citations where do you see my “ignorance” or stupid talkings and evidences (PCT or scientific) which will show that my talkings are ignorant. Do you understand what I’m talking about ?
If you’ll not provide evidences for what you are saying I’ll call you a liar and bullshitter etc.
I always provide evidences for your “empty” talkings. So I provided evidences for what I’m saying. And in whole our conversation you didn’t offer single LIFE example or experiment where you saw my ignorancy or stupidity or one single experiment or analysis of Life example that could show who is wrong or right.
So if you’ll ever make a statement about that I’m igonrant or stupid I WANT EVIDENCE.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND ???
If that will not happen I’ll continue giving you names like : “empty talker” or bullshitter etc. until you will not provide evidences of your NONSENSE talkings.
EVIDENCES, ARGUMENTS….That’s what I want. Not just your ignorant ooppinion and “empty talkings” without any scientific basis.
BL : While I did go down through part of this post and comment, I realize while doing that there is a much better way to attempt to finally end this stupid arguing.
HB : Whatever you think are "your better ways to ATTEMPT TO STOP your stupid communication"Â you missed again the point, because you are continuing with your “empty talkings” and phylosophing.
That’s why your arguing is stupid. The only arguing that can prove who is right or not or who is stupid are experiments, life examples, researches…. etc.
The most “stupid arguing” you performed was when you started to analyze the filed which is my profesionality : school system. And you insulted me, but actually you don’t know anything about me. And you know even less about school systems.
But Bill Leach “sees” everything and what he says is “holy truth” even if he knows nothing about the subject and he has no evidences.
Bill Leach you are primitive of the worst kind. Are you coming everyday from a cave ?
BL : Teacher/educators are usually quite aware of the importance for them to both be able
BL : In fact if they are not aware of this then they are probably lousy teachers!
HB : How do you know what teacher should be aware of ? Aware of what ? They should be aware of what Bill Leach is saying about school system (reference), or they should be aware of World Community (reference) is saying about school systems.
And If teachers are not aware of what BIG Bill Leach is saying about school system than they are lousy teachers !!! From which Planet are you coming ?
Whatever your “findings” about scholling children and “transffering” knowledge from teachers to learners are, you showed World class ignorancy which is probably 200 years old. I made approximation to Europian history of classical school systems which were using such an old logic of schoolling as you are showing. It seems that your mind is from 19. century.
Modern approcahes to teaching (World Community) have nothing to do with what you are explaning or even giving references how teachers teach and how they should teach. You don’t understand what terms like “special needs”, “integration” and “inclusivness” are. You don’t understand how different learners can understand differently what teacher lecture and how different teachers understand what learners undestand.
HB : But you could understand all these things if you would understand PCT. But you don’t.
You are just “empty” talker probably based on experiences from time when you were sitting in classroom and you are probably masturbing in your memories. You are fossile Bill Leach.
BL : ….has beeen (is?) an educator could be so ignorant of the properties of language as to make the stupid statements that you so frequently make.
HB : Now you went far enough with your primitivism. I’m not American so I can’t be ignorant about your language, although I learned English in school. You don’t need to speak to me if you think I’m ignorant about properties of “American” language. Mostly people understand what I’m saying, and they answer so we usually make some conclussion. But with you it’s impossible to come to an agreement because you are perfectly using the properties “stupid arguing”. So we can stop our arguing if you stop with your stupid arguments.   Â
I don’t know how different American and English languages are, but I’m sure you wouldn’t understand at least 5 dialects in London. Not mentioning other cities in UK. If it will stay UK ? Do you think you can be ignorant about “English” language ??? Are there any dialects in US or all American speak the “same language”, which I’m ignorant about ???
Which are those stupid statments I made ??? Prove it and find evedences YOUR LIAR AND BULLSHITTER. I proved any of your stupid statements and you are the one who clearly understand what I wrote (as you answered). Why are you answering if I don’t know anything about your language and you are judging language expression and make judgment about my education, about which you know nothing. It’s obviously that you “understand” what I wrote in your way of course.
Well I want detailed explanation what you know about my education and where I made "stupid statements ???
YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME and MY WORK, YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SCHOOL SYSTEMS AND YOU DARE TO INSULT TEACHERS AND MY EDUCATION ???
I CAN’T SAY ANTHING ELSE BUT THAT YOU ARE WORLD CLASS BULLSHITTER. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE “EMPTY TALKER” ?
HB : And I’m interested how your education include understanding of my language. I’m wondering how you would do with my language ? Will you translate to yourself if I’ll speak prefectly right in my language ? How many languages do you speak ??? That is real measure of language cultivation if you connect it with education. I understand and talk your language, but you know nothing about my language. So it’s probable that I talk more languages than you do.
ANYWAY. WHATEVER YOU THINK THAT YOUR GRAMMAR ABOUT YOUR LANGUAGE IS RIGHT, YOU CAN’T BE “PROTECTED” FROM NONSENSE and EMPTY WORDS YOU ARE USING.
SO I’LL ALSO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO CUT YOUR CRAP AND BULLSHITTING.
WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO :
-
You will present your MODEL of however you think organisms function. It can be your vission of PCT so how you think PCT understand organisms functioning BUT I WANT YOUR MODEL
-
You’ll provide experiments and analysis of Life examples for your MODEL of human functioning or your MODEL OF PCT. Let us see finally how and what you really understand about PCT.
-
You will provide conclussions about whether MODEL which you’ll make and EXPERIMENTS or Life examples match.
HB : In time of our conversation you wrote so many nonsense and “empty wording” that I don’t understand how somebody can write so much on such a big “space” and TELL EXACTLY NOTHING. Even more. In your writings you were insulting the author of the theory on CSGnet which is dedicated in his memory saying that he is just " wording" and you insulted sources of his knowledge.
BL : Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!
HB : And you insulted Bills source for PCT theory affirming that Ashby is disgusting.
BL : …Ashby says …," and other disparagging and disgusting comments.
Bill P (1998) :
I took this idea, incidentally, from the cyberneticist W. Ross Ashby because I thought he was right, though I couldn’t prove it.
Bill P (B:CP) :
My model is direct extension of Ashby’s concept of “ultrastability”, the property intended be demonstrated by this uniselector-equipped homeostat. Ultrastability exists when a system is capable not only of feedback control of behavior-affected perception, but of altering the properties of the control system, including how they perceive and act, as means of satisfying the highest requirements of all survival.
HB : You see I provided evidences for what I’m talking. I want you to do the same.
WHAT DID I DO FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF PCT ?
I provided a MODEL of PCT which includes definitions of control (B:CP) and LCS III diagram. If you think that I’m wrong with my model and that I don’t know what is required for portions of theory, show your PCT arguments confussion maker. Show us how you can make model from portions of PCT. And if you’ll not make it, I’ll continue calling you “empty talker” and bullshitter.
Why I think that my MODEL is the best approximation of PCT :
- Definitions of PCT control loop are taken from the central work of Bill Powers in 1973. Definitions in Glossary represent the essence of Bills theory as they are shown like “extract” of PCT theory on the end of the book :
PCT Definitions of control loop :
Bill P (B:CP):
- CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Bill P (B:CP):
- OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
Bill P (LCS III):
- FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
Bill P (B:CP) :
- INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
Bill P (B:CP) :
- COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
Bill P (B:CP)
- ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
Bill P (B:CP) :
- ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.
       2. LCS III diagram “represent” somehow whole Bill Powers work. Book was published in 2008 and so I assumed it is well equiped with all Bill Powers knowledge he got through his long experiences with PCT. It could be around 35 years of his work. Although we could count here experiences before 1973 so that we could come to number 50 years of his work. So by my oppinion “portion” of his theory include his LIfe Work.
The model of basic control loop in PCT presented above supports my analysis of behaviors (see in CSGnet archives) and at least 10 Life experiments (which I didn’t present yet).
HB : And what you’ve got to support your BLCT (Bill Leach Control Theory) ???
HB : Although definitions of control loop and LCS III diagram are showing wide time gape, they don’t show much deviations from his central idea that “Perception is what is controlled not behavior (output)”. Bill used to say that “Behavior is means of control” or that behavior (output) is not controlled. It’s Mantra in PCT. What is controlled is perception.
HB : So I want you to PROVE that my portion model of PCT and definitions are what you wrote :
BL : ……that only demonstrates that you know nothing about language, nor anything about what is required as proof for portions of theory, PCT included.
PROVE IT. PROVE THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS TRUE AND THAT MY MODEL IS NOT RIGHT PORTION OF THEORY PCT BY MAKING YOUR MODEL, WHICH WILL SHOW HOW YOU UNDERSTAND THE PORTIONS OF PCT
BILL LEACH. YOU ARE CONFUSION MAKER, NONSENSE AND EMPTY TALKER AND THE BIGGEST BULLSHITTER I EVER SAW. BUT IF YOU’LL MANAGE TO PROVE WHAT I DEMAND FROM YOU I’LL STOP CALLING YOU BULLSHITTER AND EMPTY TALKER ETC.
HB : So let us see what you have to do ? I want the critics of my MODEL of Bills’ MODEL and I want your proposal of MODEl of PCT model OR MODEL OF HOW ORGANISMS FUNCTION and of course example how your model fit into Reality.
You understand what you have to do so that we’ll not call you any more “nonsense and empty talker” and bullshitter.
HB : And it would be good if you appologize to Powers ladies for insulting their father and his sources when he created PCT.
BL : Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!
BL : …Ashby says …," and other disparaging and disgusting comments.
HB : BTW. Bill’s theory is in many basic assumptions also product of Ashby’s book “Design for a brain”.
Bill P (1998) :
I took this idea, incidentally, from the cyberneticist W. Ross Ashby because I thought he was right, though I couldn’t prove it.
Bill P (B:CP) :
My model is direct extension of Ashby’s concept of “ultrastability”, the property intended be demonstrated by this uniselector-equipped homeostat. Ultrastability exists when a system is capable not only of feedback control of behavior-affected perception, but of altering the properties of the control system, including how they perceive and act, as means of satisfying the highest requirements of all survival.
Boris
P.S. the detailed answers are bellow.
BL : Boris, why don’t you try learning something about language?
HB : You should try to learn something about how organisms function. It has nothing to do with language. You can learn in any language how organisms function. You even don’t know how nervous system function and you are talking about understanding some language. Explain to us how nervous system function ??? You can include explanation of “comparator” if you want.
It’s obviously that you and Rick don’t understand the “function” of the comparator in the LCS control loop so you probably don’t understand how basically nervous system function (you see I’ll offer a “proof”) :
RM ealier : 5-COMPARATOR : Function that takes a perceptual and a reference signal as input and produces an error signal as output, the error signal being proportional to the difference between the inputs to this function.
BL : This is correct except that it did not include the direction or sign of the error.
RM earlier : 6-ERROR SIGNAL : The output of the comparator function.
BL earlier : Correct of course.
HB : These several statements make you World Champions in talking nonsense.
BL : It is hard for me to even believe that someone that is educated in science, has done research, has been (is?) an educator could be so ignorant of the properties of language as to make the stupid statements that you so frequently make.
HB : Beleive me Bill I can’t bit you in producing stupid statements. I provided evidences for many of your stupid statements, but you didn’t “proved” any of my stupid statements.
HB : I prove my words about you producing stupid statementy (they are also in this text). And you didn’t produce a single citation of my “stupid” statement with your arguments why you think they are stupid. In whole our conversation you just provide “empty talking”. Your are a liar Bill and manipulator and of course bullshitter.
HB : Maybe I made mistakes in language (who doesn’t) as I was writing very fast and I admitt I made quite some mistakes. I saw them when I sent you post. But you didn’t complaint till now that you wouldn’t understand what I’m writing. You obviously stayed without arguments. But as you clearly answered you must be understanding what I wrote.
I’ll try to write slower because now I know that you are a slow reader and slow thinker, and I’m sure mistakes will be less frequent. But it’s obviosuly that it doesn’t affect understading of what I write. You understand it perfectly. And your answers reflect that you understand what I wrote no matter of my ignorancy about “properties” of American language.
BL : While I did go down through part of this post and comment, I realize while doing that there is a much better way to attempt to finally end this stupid arguing.
HB : It’s maybe stupid arguing for you, because your arguments are stupid as you stayed out of arguments. You obviously don’t understand what you are doing, becasue you can’t achieve your goals. You are clear PCT case and for MOL session. Ask Tim Carey if he has a moment for you. Or Eva. There are many good psychoterapist on this forum. Probably Earlig too and David. I’m sure if you’ll ask them for help they will help you.
Poor Billy can’t achieve his goals and he is “crying” like a little child. Helpless. Smrk, smrk…
BL : We are basically arguing about only 2 things.
HB : So you see you understood what I was writing and you made conclussions about how to solve the problem (in your way of course). And I’ll show you my way of solving problems. Of course.
BL : And I am NOT talking about lousy use of the English language with your incomplete sentences, lack of agreement between subject and object, incorrect use of tense, etc., etc.,etc. Instead, you typically vomit pages of text that only demonstrates that you know nothing about language,
HB : Your complaint about how and what I’m writing is useless. I admitt that I know little about “your” language. But that has nothing to do with our problem and mutual understanding. Do you understand where you have a problem ?
You obviously understand what i’m writing and that’s what only matters. We communicate, “exchange” our thoughts and obviously understand each other. If you don’t understand I’ll offer you extra explanation.
BL : …nor anything about what is required as proof forr portions of theory, PCT included.
HB : Let us make hypothesis that I don’t know anything what is required as proof for portions of PCT theory. So let as say that LCS III diagram and definitions of control (B:CP) are “wrong” extracts or portions of PCT, Prove that they are wrong portions or extracts of PCT. And I don’t want only your phylosophy and “nonsense or empty” talkings. I want arguments, experiments and Life examples why you think my portion of PCT (extract) is not right.  Â
HB : So I want you to make “abstract” of Bills theory which you think is the best approximation to the essence of what he wrote. Let me see your “demonstration” what you know about PCT……and what you kn know what is required as proof for portions PCT theory ??? But no bullshitting. Do we understand ???
I want it now provocator. Let me see your understanding of PCT. You are master of diverting attention, but it all stays what I wrote till now.
My explanation of PCT is defined with definitions of control (B:CP) and LCS III diagram.
If think they are wrong, show your PCT arguments confussion maker. Why I think this is the best approximation of PCT :
-
Definitions of PCT control loop are taken from the central work of Bill Powers in 1973. Definitions represent the essence of Bills theory as they are shown like “extract” of PCT theory on the end of the book and
-
LCS III diagram “represent” somehow whole Bills work. Book was published in 2008 and so I assumed it is well equiped with all Bill Powers knowledge he got through his long experiences with PCT. With his previous work It could be arround 50 years of his work.Â
Although LCS III diagram and definitions are showing wide time gape they don’t show much deviations from his central idea that “Perception is what is controlled not behavior (output)”.Â
HB : I agree that Bill sometimes changed his mind so in such a cases we’ll have to judge which arguments (experiments, tests, Life examples…) prevail.
 My approximation of PCT stays because it’s what Life experiments or analysis of behaviors clearly show:
PCT Definitions of control loop :
Bill P (B:CP):
- CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Bill P (B:CP):
- OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
Bill P (LCS III):…the ouutput function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
Bill P (LCS III):
- FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
Bill P (B:CP) :
- INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
Bill P (B:CP) :
- COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
Bill P (B:CP)
- ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
Bill P (B:CP) :
- ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.
HB :Â I think this is the essence of Bills’ theory which I can prove with experiments. At least 10.
But if I would really put all my efforts into experimenting with PCT I could produce arround 50 experiments (from three fields of human behavior) which will with no doubt support LCS III diagram and definitions of control (B:CP).
NOW BILL YOUR TURN TO SHOW WHAT YOU HAVE.
So find better approximation for PCT and of course back it up with experiments. So that you will not stay on the level of bullshitting, nonsense and empty talkings or phylosophing. Concrete answers.
SO YOUR PROPOSAL OF WHAT PCT IS ?
HB : If you’ll do that in appropriate manner I’ll stop calling you bullshitter etc. We need concrete arguments.
I understand it’s natural “reaction” of LCS that it tries to humiliate opponent. But with me such an approcah will not work.
HB : Put evidences on the table, but not about use of tenses or grammar of whatever language etc. I want to see which are all portions of the PCT theory which you are talking about and could better explain PCT ???
That’s the real problem we have. Which are the portions of the PCT theory which will show what PCT is. I hope you will not be citating whole books.
HB : “Empty talking” about my language mistakes help you cover “holes” in your PCT knowledge.
Beleive me or you don’t need even to beleive me (as I’m proving) that I have no problem in seeing your “empty talking” in your text. I understand enough of “your” language. What you showed till now you are World class nonsense talker maybe even bigger then Rick.
HB : We are not arguing. You are craping and bullshitting. That’s not arguing. Avoiding direct confrontation with statements which causes our conflict I call bullshitting. O.K. it’s good tactic of LCS which is on the way to achieve goals. But I read you.
I know what you are doing from our private conversation on. Well you didn’t refer to my mistakes in language in our private communication as we were communicating without any problems as we do now. I undestand you and you obviously understand me what I’m saying. But interesting you emaphasised that if would leave CSGnet forum, it would mean that forum will loose. Explain why if I don’t understand English or whatever American ?
The First Issue of Contention
BL : You are taking a position that pretty much any statement about what PCT is or about how PCT works that is stated in a manner different than exactly how Bill stated the same concept is, by definition, wrong.
HB : I’m taking the position of Bills PCT which is supported by anatomy, physiology, neurophysiology, cybernetics etc. arguments. His knowledge was wide not AS YOUR NARROW biochemical view (it’s what you told me). Maybe you can show us more what your read or more of your knowledge how organisms function. I think we could all benefit if you’ll really show something.
HB : And there are experiments and tests of Bill’s Theory which convinced me that experiments work exactly as Bill Powers predicted in his theory (my aproximation). And his terminology qiute exactly describe what is happening in Real Reality.
That’s not the case with your “wording”. It’s imagination which is working iin your head no concrete results of some reseacrh or Test. Â
So we have yours several statements :
BL : Living beings use output to control perception
BL : ! I DID NOT SAY THAT BEHAVIOR IS CONTROLLED!
BL : ….in the above I did NOT say that behavior or output is controlled!
HB : Beside that you were confused, you didn’t show any arguments as you are not showing them now.
And what Bill Powers wrote about behavior (output).Â
Bill Powers : That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
HB : So you are claiming that Living beings use output to control perception and Bill Powers is claiming that Living beings use output to affect input (perception).
I say that statement that "Living beings use output to affect input (perception) can be seen from all definitions of contrrol loop (B:CP). And LCS III diagram. And we all know that it’s PCT mantra that “Behavior is not controlled”.
So I will conclude that in PCT “behavior (output) affects perception”. Sorry Bill. I can’t accept your contradiction.
Your statement that "behavior (output) control perception IS WRONG from aspect of definitions of PCT and LCS III diagram. It’s contradicting with Bills’ statement and other statements in control loop. And we know that Bill Powers statement “represent” PCT ???
And we know now that Bill Leach statements BLCT (Bill Leach Control Theory). It’s yours oppinion how behavior (output works). If you think that “Behavior controls perception” you have to present us :
-
We need to know how “muscle tension” is controlled" and
-
We need to know how perception look like if it is formed and controlled by behavior (output). Is that something like “Perceptual Controlled Variable” or CPV in Ricks.
HB : I’ll help you what Bill Powers thought of “perceptual signal” :
Bill P (B:CP) :
…it si even more apparent that the first order perceptual signal reflects only what happens at the sensory endings : the source of the stimulation is completely indefined and unsensed. If any information exists about the source of the stimulus, it exists only distributed over millions of first order perceptual signals and is explicit in none of them
HB : And even you noticed that Rick is talking nonsense.
HB earlier : Rick is using term (CPV) which was never used by Bill.
BL earlier : No, I agree, Bill did not use the term to my knowledge.
HB : It’s not just difference in wording but it is difference in what is happening in real life what can be supported with many PCT experiments and analysis of behaviors.
And how many experiments and analyis you have presented to support your BLCT ???
The more behaviors we analyse the more precise we can see how behaviors work and how they support PCT. Ups. Sorry. I forgot that you know nothing about PCT Research. Poor Bill. Can we help you somehow ?
BL earlier : Boris I am not and do not claim to be a PCT researcher. I do discuss behavior, as do most of us, on this net.
HB : Why don’t you go rather into a pub and discuss behavior with “equal” to you.
BL : My position and I’m pretty sure the position of everyone on CSGNet except yourself is that in most any language different wording can express exactly the same meaning as other wordings.
HB : And I’m pretty sure that the position of everyone on CSgnet except yourself is that in most any language different wording CAN NOT express exactly the same meaning as other wordings. Nothing is the same in perception or interpereatation of perception. The best description of how this works was given by Bruce Nevin :
BN ealier : They cannot have the same p because p represents a neural signal within each. Their genetic and personal histories will have endowed them differently. It is vanishingly unlikely that their respective perceptual organs and nervous systems are constructed so as to generate the same rate of firing. Each will have developed appropriate rates of firing for reference values r corresponding to their perceptual signals p so that they control satisfactorily and get along in life. One may be wearing sunglasses so a different quantity of photons reaches a different retina
HB : Bruce Nevin description of differences between perceptions in different LCS can be easily proven with Maturanas’ experiments with colours, frogs etc. And of course also with PCT.
HB : You should know why the differences in perception and interpretation of perception exist. And we’ve gone through that once. Shall we go again ???
BL : I also include most emphatically the most precise language that humans have developed, that of mathematics.
HB : Well we’ll see about that later what kind of different meanings mathematical classical notaion can have.
BL : If the writer of those words is able to make accurate assumptions about the knowledge of the subject being discussed for the reader/listener then an even broader range of differences in wording is possible.
HB : As I told before. Cut the crap. You don’t know nothing about succesfull teaching and quality education. So don’t try to be smart.
Very little depend from “accurate assumption” about the knowledge of the subject being discussed for the reader/listener what ever broader range of differences in wording writer or teacher use. The success of educational process lies somewhere else. If you would uinderstand PCT you would know what it is. O.K. you’l need some basic knowledge of “Social Pedagogigs” etc. But all in all you don’t understand how learning of students function.
BL : Teacher/educators are usually quite aware of the importance for them to both be able to express a concept in multiple exactly correct forms as well as to be able to express (particularly complex) concepts in simplified forms for the purpose of teaching the most important aspect(s) of a concept.
HB : I must say that I admire your imagination. But that doesn’t mean that you understand what is happening in REAL schools with the concept of classical "transffering of knowledge"Â you descibed. But if you would understand PCT you could be on good way to understand.
HB : Obviously you don’t know nothing about teaching so it would be better to shut up.
BL : In the latter case the student must also learn the aspect(s) of the concept that were not included in the simplified explanation.
HB : Again. You are missing the point of quality in educational process. It’s not about explanations or any kind of “transffering knowledge”. It’s the whole proces of students “self-developing”.
BL : Another reason for using a simplified form is when it is known that the reader/listener already knows a correct full expression of the concept(s) under discussion but only particular aspect(s) of one or more of the concepts is important in the discussion. In fact if they are not aware of this then they are probably lousy teachers!
HB : It would be really better that you don’t talk about teaching because from what you wrote is obviously that your talkings are “empty” and that you don’t understand effective teaching.Â
BL : In ALL cases, including mathematics, some degree of knowledge concerning the context is necessary for understanding of what was written or spoken.
HB : Of course is necessary some degree of knowledge to understand what was written or spoken. But the emphasis is on some degree not the same knowledge and the same understanding as you wanted to prove with your mathematical example.
BL earlier : …that in most any lannguage different wording can express exactly the same meaning as other wordings.
HB : If I understand right you are trying to explain how all classes of languages produce tha same meaning and that includes mathematics. Most of classes of langugages (phyisics, chmemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, psychosociology, even astronomy (different theories about space) will show internal differences in terminology and in understading the subject of observing and interpretation. Â
Cyberbernetics produce many langauge meanings as one inovator noticed (Von Foerster), who created Cybernetics of 2. order. I don’t put much on his oppinion but he was right about one thing “Observing systems”. Everybody observe in accordance to the structure and functioning as Maturana pointed out. Not two observations will be the same.
HB : But if you are saying now (in contradiction to your previous statement) that “some degree” of knowledge is necesary to understand some meaning of something than I agree with you. But not that knowledge is necessary to understand the same meaning.Â
BL : Context is itself a complex term that always includes a general understanding of what subject is being discussed and includes factor such as why statement are being made among other possible factors. That is particularly true for statements in the formal language of mathematics. However, in mathematics we quite often explicitly state some of the context when we include the “Where:” clause. However, it is also quite common when writing classic formulas NOT to include the “Where” clause in that for anyone in the field would know that clause.
Examples:
In ‘common’ language’:
Some examples exist below. I am not inclined to search through Bill’s works and his writings in the archives to find examples of where he used different wording to describe the same thing. Maybe another PCTer can do that without having to expend a great deal of time.
In mathematics (in this case specifically electricity/electronics):
HB : I don’t understand from when “electricity and electronics” are fields of mathematics ???
E = I x R = EMF = (Voltage across some part of a circuit) = (current flow through the circuit in amperes) x (the resistance of the circuit) = (number of coulombs per second passing a point in a circuit) x R = (coulombs per second) x n x (kg x m^2 x s^-3 x A^-2) = etc.
^ => character(s) immediately following are superscript
etc. => implies more examples exist than are shown
/ = division sign
A = amperes
EMF = potential across two points in volts
kg = kilogram
I = current in amperes
m = meters
n = number of standard resistance units
R = resistance in ohms
x = multiplication sign
Note that EACH of the 8 individual expressions are EXACTLY THE SAME THING!
HB : Cut “empty talking”. Even if mathematical expression show some equivalence It has nothing to do with “same understanding” or with our PCT problem. Mathematical expressions are just “outer or external representation” of something people think about and they don’t represent the same or “uniform” people thinking.
Apparently there is no equality in the sense how different persons percive and different interpete those mathematical expressions (perception).
For ilustration I’ll describe you one experiment in which Lehmer, Birkhoff, Wiener and some more TOP MATHEMATICIANS in that time were included. They got a problem in classical mathematical notation “very heavy”.
HB : Beside the mathematical problem expressed in classical mathematical notation, there was an empty space limited with upright lines and on the end mathematicians were asked to write result again in classical mathematical form. You understand what I’m writing ?
The hypothesis of the experiment was that all TOP mathematicians will solve the heavy mathematical problem with clasical “equal” notation (in form of classical mathematical signs).
HB : So what do you think was the result of experiment ? Non of all these TOP mathematicians used classical mathematical notation. They all used their signes like dots, lines in special realtions and special signes. Only N.Wiener used in some parts “word text” but it was not mentioned whether it was garammatically rigtht 
. Wiener needed 33 sec. to solve the problem. First was one French TOP mathematician which name I don’t remember. He solved the problem in 16 s. Computer in that time needed more than 3 minutes.
The conclussion was that "quantitative"Â images (conceptions) of mathematical “equal” notations are not the same. The conclussion was something what we could easily conclude from knowing PCT.
Non of the perceptions are the same and non of interpretation of perceptiona are the same. Whatever numbers and classical mathematical signes people will write, they will never be the same. They will have specific form in accordannce to certain personal characteristics. That’s also how graphologist conclude on the basis of writings specific characteristics of personality.
The Second Issue of Contention
BL : Is the definition of proof. To Bill Powers, Rick Marken, and myself (and I know very many others involved in PCT) for something to actually be a PROOF is must be expressible accurately in a form such as those given in the equation example above.
HB : No. Not in PCT or any science that is dealing with human beings (psychology, sociology etc.). How can you put Living being into mathematical form ? This is again one of your “flowers”. You can’t put human into numbers. People, pupils are not numbers. They are Living beings. You understand what does it mean ?
Proof or scientific arguments are something that we can all perceive and make judgment how we perceive it. But it is experiment or Life example etc something that Bill Powers called “nature – the final arbiter”. If judgements will be at least aproximatelly similar we are talking about the “same” thing that is going on in Reality or in our internal World.
BL : In the Preface to B:CP I seem to remember that Bill stated essentially that “Opinions from experts or others, INCLUDING HIS OWN, are not PROOFs.”
HB : Well what do we have here. A citation from Bills book. Nice. O.K. some more citations (from the Preface to B:CP).
Bill P (B:CP): I don’t think I denied science. Indeed, to most readers the first part of this book will seem a direct denial of my hope, for it gives a delibratelly and specidically mechanistic picture of how central nervous system behaves.
HB : For mechanistic picture of nervous system you need “PROOFS”. And Bill provided them including oppinions of experts like : psychistrist, neurophysiologist, and so on… So he used ooppinion of those experts which are dealing with their fields of proffesion every day. For example doctors are saving people lives every day. You think that their oppinion is not a proof of understanding how organisms function ??? If they wouldn’t understand how organisms function they would kill people every day. There is always place to improve knowledge about human functioning but basically understanding of organisms functioning is achieved so that medicine can save more than 90 % cases of people problem. And based upon anatomical and neurophyiological and other expert “proofs” Bill created his theory.
BL : If Bill had any shortcomings as a human, over-blown ego, superiority, and arrogance were not among them!
HB : We are not talking about Bills perosnal characteristics. We are talking about scientific proofs.Â
But whatever. I think I understood what you wanted to say. LCS will do anything that it has to do to achieve it’s goals. And your goal is apperently to stay in confict with me and promote Ricks Marken nonsense theory. And of course your even more nonsense BLCT theory. So you want to “prove” that " proofs" are not acceptable, because you and Rick want to talk whatever you want and that nobody would verify what you are talking about. That is not going to happen. I’ll check every word you say and you will have to prove it.
BL : He knew humans are not error free, ever; and that he was included in that class.
HB : Nobody ever mentiooned on CSGnet that is “error free”. Maybe Rick . But you mentioned mathematical (or better physical notation) that :
BL earlier Note that EACH of the 8 individual expressions are EXACTLY THE SAME THING!
HB: Does this mean that people think in the “exactly seme manner” or exactly the same without “error”. So you didn’t include possibility of “error free” if I understood right what you wrote. If people are thinkng exactly the same than they wouldn’t be “error free”. Because if there is no thinking differences than there can be no “error”.
BL : The facts that I just stated about Bill Powers is indeed one of the many things that endeared him so deeply to so many of us that knew him. He was one of the most wonderful people that I have ever interacted with.
HB : You are showing your strange devotion to Bill Powers saying that he was just wording.
BL earlier : Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!
BL : If something about PCT can not be written in the language of mathematics then it might be useful, might be suggestive of “correctness” but it is NOT a proof.
HB : It is “proof” if it is supported by experiments or PCT analysis of behavior or as Bill used to say : nature tha final arbiter.
You analyzed “sleeping” behavior and you established that it is right, because you used expert oppinion. And “Sleeping” behavior (PROOF INJ NATURE) shows that it is in accordance with PCT not with RCT or BLCT.
BL : That is the END of discussion with your “Give me data,”
HB : Whenever you’ll return into conversation about PCT with statement that “Behavior is control” or any other statement that is contradicting to Bills PCT (LCS III diagram and definitions of PCT), then I’ll demand “Give me data…”, results of experiments, PCT analysis of behaviior, etc.Â
I understand that for you and Rick citations of Bills book and experiments that show that Bills PCT is right, is a great disturbance to your way of thinking. But you’ll have to get use to it, because you are on CSgent forum (Bill Powers forum) not in your private “garden”.Â
HB : Let us stop “empty talkings” and get on real work, which will prove whether Bill Powers PCT is right or not.
The next on the list of behaviors we have to go through is Bruce Abbotts’ example of “sunbathing”.
I wonder why analysis in not here. I thought that by analyzing Ricks case of “sleepnig” behavior you understood the principle how PCT will be supported with LIfe examples and experiments so that we can prove which of the theories : PCT or RCT or BLCT is right.
Boris
bill
Bill,
the problem I see in your approach to PCT or to the sicence is that you think that you are so much smarter than all other scientist.
Well surprise you are not.
No Boris, I don’t think that “I am the brightest bulb in the pack.” I have worked with too many geniuses to have that opinion.
I didn’t want to answer as you ask for it :
BL : So yes, we are wasting each others time and probably the time of anyone else that happens to read this thread.
HB : O.K. I’ll not demand honorarium becasue you are repeating what I already wrote that we can’t communicate. It’s hard to communicate if somebody is bullshitting.
And I’ll be quite long as such approach you showed needs long critics.
I agree Boris, but it is YOU that are bullshitting trying to show that you know something when all you do is demonstrate just how ignorant you are.
BL : You and I (and indeed others) have been arguing about words NOT about theory.
HB : You can’t be that stupid. Words, numbers etc. express theory and “represent” to some extent what is happening inside and outside organism. How else could we communicate and exchange what we understand about Real Reality if not with words and numbers that represent something.
Of course Boris, at least in speaking or writing in subject areas that have a relationship to some science, our words and formulas are what we use to convey to others what we are trying to describe or explain. Even in fiction and fantasy the story teller or writer is relying upon some common perception for a world model, based primarily upon experience, in the listeners or readers.
BL : You seem to be claiming that if anyone writes anything about PCT that does not use exactly the same words as did Bill Powers then whatever they wrote is wrong. That position is itself B.S.!
HB : It seems that you don’t understand the problem you have and what I’m doing. You can write what ever you want but I’ll always compare what you said with Bill Powers words. We agreed that he was very precise in using his words about what is true how orgsnisms funtion.
So if your words does not match Powers words than we have to encode meaning of his words and your words. Words always have some meaning which is given by individual.
If other words represent other meaning than Bill Powers than it’s very likely that words are wrongly describing what is happening in Real Reality. That’s why we have experiments and Tests to check the whether words and numbers would express what is really happening. It’s not just about wording. But also about meaning of the words.
In Bills formal writing is was indeed particularly careful in his choice of phraseology and use of terms. Not perfect, mind you, but unusually good at it.
HB : We were not arguing about words Bill, but about whether words and numbers mean something really what we can experience in our Lives and when some life experiments are started and repeated or about.
I say that Bill Powers words have extremly high comatibility what is happening in Reality. They represent quite well what is happening inside and outside organisms of any kind. It’s the General theory of how organisms function, so Bill Powers words explain how really Living beings function.
I pretty much agree with what I think you are trying to express until the last sentence. Some points:
-
PCT is a theory ONLY because Bill performed some experiments that provided formal proof some of the concepts of his original hypothesis, and
-
Bill recognized that some research literature from related disciplines actually provided formal proof for some concepts of his original hypothesis
-
Bill fully recognized that his theory was not sufficiently complete to explain all human behavior
-
Bill also recognized that parts of his theory could well be proven to NOT be correct
Bill Powers did not claim that it was proven that PCT as a whole was correct. So while it is a General Theory of how living organisms function it does not currently explain all that is know about how human (and most complex living beings) function. Even if everything currently in the theory was proven to be correct, the theory is NOT complete. An incomplete theory can not explain all observed phenomenon!
And Ricks (RCT) and yours (BLCT) don’t explain even close as much as Bill Powers words. Do you understand what I’m talking about. Although Rick “signed” that he agree that Bill Powers words explain what was written in the above text.
If words or numbers turn to describe wrongly what is happening in Reality (and yours words with no doubt are of this kind) than we have to change words. Ask Martin how wording and numbering is changed in physics ( if doesn’t suit Reality (Rayleigh–Jeans Law). They used wrong words and numbers to describe whatever they thought was happening in physical reality.
I think I understand what you said, and if so then you are wrong in your assertion, period!
BL : Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!
HB : This is probably the biggest nonsense I’ve read on CSGnet forum, beside Rick of course. So if I understand right, Bill Powers words are NOT PROOF of then just “words on the paper”. They don’t PROVE anyathing but they they are written. That’s all.
It is in this assertion of yours that shows that you clearly never met Bill Powers. If you think that Bill Powers believed that something was true just because he said so then you know absolutely nothing about the character of the man!
Proof as Bill Powers defined it and described it, involves formal testing (experiments) conducted with the rigor used in the hard sciences that are replicable by pretty much anyone with reasonable skill in performing experiments. No one’s opinion would be considered as a proof by Bill (including his own opinion).
HB : If I understand right what you wrote Bill Powers words don’t prove anything that is behind words, because we are talking just about words.
BL : You and I (and indeed others) have been arguing about words NOT about theory.
HB : Sorry Bill Leach. You know what folloews : Stop bullshitting.
Any you need to know that every time you say that your are only demonstrating to everyone that reads this what an ignorant ass you are!
HB : Bill Powers theory is proof that HIS WORDS QUITE EXACTLY EXPLAIN HOW LIVING BEINGS FUNTION. So they are NOT just "words on the paper that doesn’t prove anything. BILL POWERS WORDS EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF LIVING BEINGS WITH SO MUCH PRECISSION THAT IT CAN’T BE SIMPLY EXCHANGED FOR OTHER WORDS LIKE YOURS OR RISCK’S ARE.
NO Boris! His theory does NOT explain EXACTLY how living being function. The lowest levels of the theory have been proven to be correct in the rigorous sense. Everything above that however is general theory or more accurately in most cases general hypothesis. ALL of the higher levels lack sufficient detail beyond just a sketch in pretty vague terms how they function with nothing concrete on how they function.
BILL POWERS THEORY WORKS in Real Reality when we experience it. I see you are avoiding experiencing PCT because it could “pull down” your little selfish imagined World. You are Living in dreams Bill Leach. It’s time to wake up and step into Reality. I’ll help you.
I can envision you helping anyone, you are too arrogant and full of yourself to stoop to helping what in your mind are lessor mortals (which includes probably everyone buy yourself but especially anyone that dares to disagree with you).
HB : So Biil s words are not ONLY PROOF of what Bill Powers wrote and said, its’ PROOF THAT HIS THEORY FUNCTION WHEN IT IS EXPERIENCED IN REALITY with experimenting or just experiencing it.
Based upon what Bill wrote and spoke of, particularly at PCT conferences, what you wrote above, contradicts everything he said about proof and believed about proof.
How can you insult dead man and his work THAT HIS ENTIRE WORK ARE JUST WORDS ANS WORDING AND NOTHING ELSE ? This is probably as low as you can fall searching the arguments for nonsense RCT and yours even more nonsense BLCT.
And here again you only demonstrate how ignorant of language principles you are (or maybe just how bad your understanding of the English is?)! No one but a complete IDIOT could infer from what I have written about what Bill said or wrote that his word did not contain meaning. He words conveyed some of the most profound ideas ever expressed in psycology but his words are not proofs. Even in his own mind.
HB : You are a big hypocrite Bill Leach. You can use biochemical and physilogical etc. evidences and other knowledge to support your statements and others are not entilted to do it. I didin’t citate only Bill Powers I citated also Henry Yin, Gary Czico… And I was citating Richard Marken. And I would citate many other authors for I beleive their knowledge wiil come true when tested in Reality. You and Rick are Living in your narrow imagination and you think that Reality will change in accordance to your imagination. It wiil not. Ask Martin why ?
Yes Boris, I cited works from other fields and never claimed that you could not. The problem that I had with your references is the status you were an [never mind, I’m switching to a different approach]
···
From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 2:23 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project
On 4/17/19 3:26 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
And let us be clear for ever about Bill Powers work. Read all the literature he citated in his legacy. You’ll be surprised howe much knowledge Bill Powers had from others which turned to be right when tested in Reality.
HB : Did you ever say something like that to him ? That his words are proof just of what he wrote and said and nothing else. Or that they are not proof of anything else than what he wrote and said.
Deep meaning of Bill Powers express something that can be chaecked in Reality. What about your words and Ricks ?
Did you thought of that before you “wrote” something Rick said quite some time ago. You two are the same phylosophers :
RM earlier : In my rush to show that this is not the case I came up with what has to be the dumbest rebuttal of all time – outdoing even myself in stupidity;-
HB : I bet you didn’t. It’s humiliating for such a great mind as Bill Powers was that somebody says that his words are NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!
And who are you to judge his work ? You should start reading his work immediately (there is a gigantic library of Bill Powers words if I understood Barb right)
…¦…and you should give an excuse to Powers ladies.
HB : If I understand right what you are talking about then it seems that you are saying that it’s all the same whatever we say or write it’s just words.
But If Bill Leach saya that horse is elephant, that is so. But if others say the same thing that is not so because they are using just words and Bill Leach words means “facts” like Ricks.
HB : It’s not that easy Bill Leach. That’s why we had oppinion of other people which have the same power to judge as any other person what is happening inside or outside organisms. They are “equal” to you in I hoped that you’ll respect that. But your arogancy exceeded any normal limits. You know what follows. Stop bullshitting Bill Leach.
HB : You REFERED many time to some of researches which we don’t know exactly what they are because we didn’t see authors and Titles. I suppose you used literature to prove that your way of thinking is right and others are wrong (like Darwins theory). You told exactly nothing as usual Rick is doing.
You also used physiological evidences (or biochemical) to prove that your standpoint is right. So you can use researches and scientific knowledge to prove your stand point and others can’t or what ? Others are just wording.
if you’ll go through Bills’ books and literature you’ll find some literature which is mostly of scientific character. That means that experiments are included. It means that Authors of the books tested or they described experiments (that can be tested) as proof that what they say can be repeated and will show at least aproximatelly the same results in Reality or as Bill said in “nature, the final arbiter”.
In my studies I’ve done quite some exercises in anatomical and physiological laboratories (I hope you understand what I mean). It’s real experiences with human body and I find out that what is written in physiological books is what is really happening when I came to real life situation or when I observed myself how I’m functioning.
HB : And doctors and nusrses use these knowledge every day to save lives. No, Bill Leach says that they are only wording, because Bill Powers used their literature, but his words means just words with no meaning as they don’t proof anything else but that they are written.
It’s not just about words. It’s about real life. And Bill used the same literature as you are “citating” which can be used in real Life and works.
Ashby was psychiatrist so you can imagine what he knew about human body. Also literature Ashby used and life examples he used are convincing about how living beings function. Maturana was biologist also full of knowledge from experiments with living beings and he knew what he was talking about.
No. They didn’t know anything because Bill Leach said so. They were just “wording”. I can’t hold. I’m sorry Bill Leach. Cut the crap and bullshitting.
HB : But you can try all that knowledge and experiments in real life and convince yourself whether is true what they were saying or not. They are scientific words.
That’s why I want that we use real life examples to find whether what we are talking is trully happening in real life or not or it’s just imagination. And in most of your explanations you used your imagination. You’ll have to start to use more real life experiences and support your words with scientific arguments instead with your imagination. But it seems that you don’t know how to do it.
BL earlier : Boris I am not and do not claim to be a PCT researcher.
HB : So why the hell you comment things that you don’t understand. Because you’ll understand them only with researches with everday life examples which will show which “wording” is right.
I have a bad feeling that you and Rick are the rare members on CSGnet that use just wording, O.K. Rick has also “bright days”.
HB : Now about real life examples.
RM (earlier) : Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states
BL : You have to know that Rick did not for a moment intend to convey that his statement about sleep was anything more than a hypothetical musing, but you treated it as though it should have been a rigorous scientific presentation, a proven theory.
HB : Ricks’ description of sleeping suit PCT and some basic physiological findings about sleeping. You confirmed that. So it’s not any more hypothesis but it can be supported with scientific evidences what you actually did. I agree that your physiological explanation is basically right. So Ricks example of sleeping is by my oppinion “pearl” in scientific description of PCT. Again. Bravo Rick.
BL : His statement is, obviously in my opinion, essentially correct.
HB : So we agree that Ricks example is “rigorous scientific explanation” based on proven physiological theories about sleeping.
BL : Most of the chemical signaling that occurs is generated by organs that are connected to the autonomic nervous system. I will agree with you (I think) in one sense though, that there are are control loops that exist in the body that do not involve nerves at all so the statement might not be exactly complete.
HB : I agree. We can not get to pure essency of living but we can be more or less close what continuous experimenting of observing the same natural event can show and knowledge about natural event improved. But imagining at home in the bed how it would look like will not give much result.
BL : Based upon the philosophy of PCT (you seem to have no use for philosophy even though it is an essential element of human understanding)
HB : That’s you problem Bill. PCT is not just phylosophy but it’s also physiology and specially cybernetics, based on W.Ross Ashby’s work. You are supporting your knowledge with physiology or biochemistry (look above you explanation in support to Ricks explanation of sleeping) and you say it’s correct but insufficient. But you in that case you used science to confirm that not phylosophy (imagination).
BL : …what Rick said is a perfectly valid postulate in PCT. >
HB : That’s what I’m talking about all the time. He confirmed that theoretical basis of PCT is right. And PCT is not just phylosophy. Do we understand ?
BL : The fact that it might error by not including chemical control loops not involving nerves does not disqualify it. Also it can easily be argued that Rick’s statement is completely correct (and I admit that even though I did post somewhere besides here that it was incomplete because of chemical signaling), because the current biochemical research has only identified hormones whose production and concentrations are controlled by organs and what we call glands that ARE connected to the nervous system.
HB : So on scientific basis we agree about Rick’s example of sleeping being right. We don’t doubt about that. So we need more examples of that kind, and I’m sure that we’ll agree about PCT being right theory that explains how generally organisms function.
Now try sunbathing. Bruce Abbott once gave nice description (physiological). I have him for a serious scientist and researcher. So if you’ll not find explanation in CSGnet archives you can probably ask him to give you explanation. Or seeing that your physiological knowledge is quite on the level, you can find it for yourself. And you’ll see that it matches PCT not RCT explanation of how Living beings control.
BL : One reason for ‘defending’ RIck is that he may well be the only person currently on CSGNet that has done or is doing research that meets the criteria acceptable under PCT. He has produced data that meets or exceed the 0.98 correlation factor and does not have outliers. That is he has designed experiments using TCV (‘The TEST’), and produced data, that has a correlation factor of 0.95 or better with no outliers, that ANYONE else can replicate.
HB : And who created these sort of testing Rick is using. Bill Powers who is just wording,
BL : Outliers in this sense is not that they fall within some band on a graph but that the theory is not capable of predicting them or explaining why they occur in a rigorous manner.
HB : You could give some example. And you could give some example of Bill Powers work. We are on CSGnet forum. Remember.
HB : Many psychological and speccially physiological reseraches are done with at least aproximatelly precission as Ricks results, but it’s not the problem in scientific precission of research but in interpretation.
Ricks interpretation with his RCT in comparison to PCT is WRONG. So it’s not problem the experiment which can be done as you said by anyone with high preccision, and repeat result. Problem is what kind of interpretation someone made. And I beleive that Ricks’ interpretation is wrong because movements in “tracking experiment” are too fast so he can’t see the nature of real control. You know people perception can be tricky.
As I said once or two times before. My serious of experiments are slow enough too show how actions are performed to vary perception arround references and prove with the same precisions as Ricks “tracking experiment” that Bill Powers was right with his PCT theorethical explanation and Rick is wrong.
BL : I am not trying to say that all other discussion and hypotheses have no value but only when subjected to the rigors of THE TEST do they gain the potential to become something that can be included in PCT as a part of the theory. Nor am I trying to exclude biological research that shows actual physical connections that implement functions described in PCT.
HB : That’s exactly what you were not trying to say. That all knowledge Bill used are just words written on the paper. That his words are not proof of anything else. And now you are saying that Bills words are also PROOF of something else that has SOME VALUE !!!
BL : Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!
HB : Bill used the literature you are talking above which is also prof of something else not just that they are written.
BL : You have provided NO evidence or data that I have seen that proves anything beyond what Bill wrote.
HB : I provided all the evidences that are icnluded into Bills writings which can be tested in Real Reality and proved that they are right or not. We know that Ricks words (theory) were tested in Reality and didn’t pass the Test.
HB : It’s true that I could add some more “wording” from some literature and results of my experiments, but I’ll stay with Bills “wording”. His words are enough powerfull to distinguish betweem charlatans and scientist. You know what follows :
Cut the crap and bullshitting and get to real work. ANOTHER EXAMPLE.
Boris
From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 2:21 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project
Boris, I am a person that does have a strong interest in PCT. As I have mentioned before my “background” is in physics and electronics. I started learning about the properties and mathematics of feedback as a child using vacuum tube technology. For reasons that I certainly do not know, when I first dealt with systems that controlled something “outside of the system itself,” I recognized that such systems were actually mimicking how a person might accomplish the same task. At the time that realization ‘hit me’ I had no idea of how profound that concept was. I learned that when I met Bill Powers.
Like most people, I was required to take some courses in behavioral science and I admit that I did learn some things of value in those courses but was also rather disgusted that the research for the field was called science. I think that most anyone with a focus on sciences such as physics believes that the behavioral sciences lack the rigor of a true science. Their foundation is primarily expert opinion. There is NO doubt that Bill Powers believed that was true.
I have forgotten why I actually bought B:CP back in the 70’s but suspect that its title was the reason. I was stunned! Here in my hands was the first thing I had ever read or heard that provided a hard science approach to the non-scientific methods used in behavioral studies.
It seems that most behavioral ‘scientists’ fail to understand that ALL aspects of the scientific method have to be complied with to be doing ‘scientific work.’ It is not sufficient to just produce data and use (or misuse) statistical analysis to prove your hypothesis. You also can not just ignore some of the data (so called outliers). If you can not produce a model from your interpretation of the data that correctly predicts behavior then you have not proven anything and you do not have a theory. At best you still have an unproven hypothesis.
You and I (and indeed others) have been arguing about words NOT about theory. You seem to be claiming that if anyone writes anything about PCT that does not use exactly the same words as did Bill Powers then whatever they wrote is wrong. That position is itself B.S.!
One of the most important characteristics of a teacher is to be able to explain the same concept using different words and different examples.
Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!
I was particularly annoyed when you essentially attacked Rick for his musings on sleep.
RM (earlier) : Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states
You have to know that Rick did not for a moment intend to convey that his statement about sleep was anything more than a hypothetical musing, but you treated it as though it should have been a rigorous scientific presentation, a proven theory.
His statement is, obviously in my opinion, essentially correct. Most of the chemical signaling that occurs is generated by organs that are connected to the autonomic nervous system. I will agree with you (I think) in one sense though, that there are are control loops that exist in the body that do not involve nerves at all so the statement might not be exactly complete. Based upon the philosophy of PCT (you seem to have no use for philosophy even though it is an essential element of human understanding) what Rick said is a perfectly valid postulate in PCT. The fact that it might error by not including chemical control loops not involving nerves does not disqualify it. Also it can easily be argued that Rick’s statement is completely correct (and I admit that even though I did post somewhere besides here that it was incomplete because of chemical signaling), because the current biochemical research has only identified hormones whose production and concentrations are controlled by organs and what we call glands that ARE connected to the nervous system.
One reason for ‘defending’ RIck is that he may well be the only person currently on CSGNet that has done or is doing research that meets the criteria acceptable under PCT. He has produced data that meets or exceed the 0.98 correlation factor and does not have outliers. That is he has designed experiments using TCV (‘The TEST’), and produced data, that has a correlation factor of 0.95 or better with no outliers, that ANYONE else can replicate. Outliers in this sense is not that they fall within some band on a graph but that the theory is not capable of predicting them or explaining why they occur in a rigorous manner.
My sincere apologies to anyone else here that I am unaware of that has also done such work.
I am not trying to say that all other discussion and hypotheses have no value but only when subjected to the rigors of THE TEST do they gain the potential to become something that can be included in PCT as a part of the theory. Nor am I trying to exclude biological research that shows actual physical connections that implement functions described in PCT.
Unlike ALL other behavioral sciences, PCT does not rely on expert opinion including those of Bill Powers himself.
You have provided NO evidence or data that I have seen that proves anything beyond what Bill wrote.
So yes, we are wasting each others time and probably the time of anyone else that happens to read this thread.
bill