God, Intentions and Internal Models

[From Rick Marken (960923.1100)]

Hans Blom (960923b]

I don't want to start a religious discussion here, nor do I want to
peddle my thoughts about the relationship between the concept of
"God" and internal models -- however interesting. But I _would_ like
to know how you came to make this comparison.

There is no more evidence for an external "God" in human life than there is
for "internal models" in human controlling. You continue to talk as though
there were some basis for believing that "internal models" are an important
aspect of control. But you have described no data that requires an
explanation using an internal model. Thus, your discussions of "internal
models" are like interminable Sunday sermons.

Talk about "internal models" with someone who cares;-)

Could you tell me how the concept of "God" fits into the PCT scheme
of things

It's an imagined perception. Though it can be turned into an actual
perception (there was a picture of god in one of my "Golden Bible" books
when I was a kid).

Me:

I have never set a reference for the perception of having someone
dead. But I can sure tell that OJ did.

Hans Blom (960923e) --

No joke? How can you know?

Based on evidence that he resisted disturbances (the victims fighting back,
one of the victims trying to interfere with the murder of the other) in
order to achieve this result.

Can you, like God (well, you introduced Him ;-), look into the hearts (or
brains) of people?

Well, now that you mention it, yes. Have you seen the "mind reading" demo?

Isn't it possible that you confuse a reference with an "unintended" side
effect of controlling for something quite unrelated (as to goal, not
as to means)?

Yes. But we can increase our confidence as high as we like by continuing to
make sure that the supposed controlled variable is protected from the effects
of disturbance variables and not protected from the effect of non-disturbance
variables.

I'm not talking about whether you have sufficient evidence _in this
case_...but whether one could know _in principle_.

Yes. I've demonstrated many times that you can obtain sufficient evidence to
determine what a person is controlling, in principle and in fact.

I doubt it.

If you still doubt it after doing the "mind reading" demo then I'm quite sure
that your are simply not interested in being convinced.

RSM

[Hans Blom, 960925b]

(Rick Marken (960923.1100))

I don't want to start a religious discussion here, nor do I want to
peddle my thoughts about the relationship between the concept of
"God" and internal models -- however interesting. But I _would_
like to know how you came to make this comparison.

There is no more evidence for an external "God" in human life than
there is for "internal models" in human controlling.

If there is no evidence for an external "God", there is plenty of
evidence for an "internal" God in a great many people. In everyone
who uses the word, in fact.

It's an imagined perception.

We're getting close. An imagined perception originates somewhere.
There must be some "machinery" that generates this imagination. I
call that machinery an "internal model". How would you prefer to call
it?

Can you, like God (well, you introduced Him ;-), look into the
hearts (or brains) of people?

Well, now that you mention it, yes. Have you seen the "mind reading"
demo?

If I remember correctly, your "mind reading" demo did not read minds
at all but depended on people performing observable, no, observED
actions. I'm looking forward to a demo where you truly read a mind,
e.g. where the subject does not use a mouse but only thought about or
concentrated on one of the presented items. And no EEGs or EOGs!

Isn't it possible that you confuse a reference with an "unintended"
side effect of controlling for something quite unrelated (as to
goal, not as to means)?

Yes. But we can increase our confidence as high as we like by
continuing to make sure that the supposed controlled variable is
protected from the effects of disturbance variables and not
protected from the effect of non-disturbance variables.

Note your "continuing to make sure". So The Test seems inapplicable
to situations in the past, and especially once-only events, where we
have only one sample.

Yes. I've demonstrated many times that you can obtain sufficient
evidence to determine what a person is controlling, in principle and
in fact.

About once-only events in the past? Can you be more specific?

Greetings,

Hans