[From Rick Marken (970102.0850)]
I spent most of New Year's day watching Kenneth Branaugh's _complete_
movie version of Hamlet (it was nearly 5 hours and it was all GREAT!). It
turns out that ol' Bill Shakespeare was one of the many early thinkers who
anticipated PCT. One of Hamlet's observations, in particular, seemed to
capture the essense of PCT: "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it
so". Clearly, what Shakespeare (Hamlet) means is that no _perception_ (such
as the perception of one's mother having wed one's uncle "hard upon" one's
father's death) is good or bad; it's one's references ("thinking") that
determine whether any particular perception is good (at the reference level)
or bad (not at the reference level).
Tracy Harms (1997;01,02.00:00) to Bill Powers (970101.2100 MST) --
The CV is an object among objects; it has an identity which is not a mental
state of a particular thinker.
I think this is wrong. The CV in PCT exists _only_ as a mental (perceptual)
state.
I do see that there is a staggering problem of potential complexity with
any significant number of varying factors, but I don't follow why this
would imply different theorized CVs that "will serve equally well, and
[yet] can't be experimentally distinguished."
I think you might follow Bill's argument better if you tried doing the Test
for the Controlled Variable using "The Coin Game" described in B:CP. I think
one's understanding of PCT is enriched by regularly observing the phenomenon
that PCT explains: control.
On that note, I should mention that I just placed another demo on my web
site. It's called "The Nature of Conflict" and it shows what happens when
two control systems are controlling for incompatible perceptions. You can
get to it from:
http://www.leonardo.net/Marken/demos.html
As always, comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Best
Rick