[From Hank Folson (2000.12.05.2130)]
Bruce Abbott (2000.12.05.1550 EST)
Hank Folson (2000.12.05.1030) --
I suggest starting off with my last point, and ask, "Is your
primary interest preserving and extending the EAB positions and body of
work, OR: trying to find out how the mind really works."
Hank, that question presupposes a rejection of the thesis I have been
advancing, which is (in case anyone needs to be reminded) that the two
views
are not necessarily incompatible.
Bruce, if we were simply talking about two different views, or
interpretations, I would not propose asking the questions the way I have.
If I am rejecting anything here, it is the use of the word "view" to
describe PCT. PCT is not just Bill Power's opinion. It is a proposed
scientific theory of biology, and in turn of the sub-area psychology. PCT
is long past being a "view" or vague idea of how organisms might work. Bill
proposed the mechanism over 40 years ago. Bill's control systems are
regularly found to exist in organisms by biologists who have no connection
with Bill's work.
...which is (in case anyone needs to be reminded) that the two views
are not necessarily incompatible.
But they are incompatible, Bruce. I summarized the incompatibilies in my
first post [Hank Folson (2000.12.04.1230)]
My proposal is to point out
what the differences between EAB and PCT are. If the EAB person does not
see how significant the differences are, there can be no real progress
made. Since EAB and PCT are clearly immiscible, . . .
Again, you are advancing a thesis that assumes you already understand the
EAB point of view and recognize that it and PCT are "clearly immiscible."
This is a flat denial of the thesis I'm pushing.
Yes, it is. The denial is based on the control system nature of organisms.
My understanding of EAB is limited to an awareness that EAB sees
'behaviors' as the end result of a process, not as outputs of control
systems. Regardless of who is right, "behaviors" simply cannot be both.
Thus the immiscibility. Sorry.
It doesn't sound too
promising to me as a starting point for discussion.
I agree, it does not. That is why I responded to Bill's question about how
to proceed in regards to EAB.
... Or is the whole point
of the "discussion" simply to show me the "error of my ways"?
Nothing so perjorative.
If I were interested in a stimulating intellectual discussion, we could go
round and round for years. I'll reword my question and ask it of myself:
"Hank, is your primary interest preserving and extending the PCT positions
and body of work, OR: trying to find out how the mind really works."
My answer: I'm primarily trying to find out how the mind really works. I am
open to someone disproving PCT by showing that organisms are not based on
control systems, but on some other demonstrable mechanism. My ten years of
experience with PCT, which primarily has been in applying it in the real
world, has me convinced that PCT is much more likely to be proven true than
disproved by experiment.
If you were to answer the question for your own private benefit, my
prediction is that you would put the preserving and extending the EAB
positions and body of work ahead of trying to find out how the mind really
works, on the basis that EAB has already demonstrated adequately how the
mind works.
Sincerely, Hank Folson
www.henryjames.com