[From Rick Marken (2004.03.25.1130)]
Michelle Ivers (2004.03.25. 2100 EST)--
It's pseudo-PCT jargon because everything we say, do, see, control, act
on, etc. is perception from a PCT perspective. There is no situation in
which you would say that someone's views were _not_ their perceptions.
Thus, saying that what people say is just their perceptions, though
true from a PCT perspective, is misleading because it implies that in
some cases what people say is not their perceptions.
So if it took me such a little time to work out the truly obvious fact that
his comments were just his perceptions, how come it took you so long? I'm
glad that you agree with me now.
No, I don't agree with that now and I didn't agree with it then. I think you
might re-read the the paragraph to which you are responding and see if you
can see where our difference lies. You can't learn PCT by assuming that what
you read confirms your preconceptions about it. I say this as one who has
made that mistake myself many times.
Some of your comments which were
particularly unhelpful include: your absolutely appalling example of
"would it be ok if I insulted you"
I'm sorry that you found my question unhelpful and appalling. I asked it
specifically because you didn't seem to find it appalling that Bill Williams
had been continuously insulting me and my work, calling me names like
"delusional", in the discussion to which you referred. You had said that
Bill's comments were "just his perception", implying that they were OK and
that I should simply ignore those comments. Yet you find it appalling that
I would ask how you would feel if someone insulted you, a question that is
also "just a perception". Apparently you are appalled more by perceptions
that are questions about _whether_ you would be insulted than by perceptions
that are actual insults. C'est la vie.
A quick note on "ignorant slut". I chose this phrase as an example insult
because it seemed very mild, since it's part of our family humor history. It
comes from an SNL parody of an old Point-Counterpoint TV segment where a
conservative and liberal commentator (James Kirkpatrick? and Shana
Alexander) debated the issues (this was back in the early 1970s). The debate
was very formal with each side taking turns in rebuttal to the other
(point-counterpoint). It was all very polite on the surface but the subtext
was, of course, very hostile. In the parody, Dan Ackroyd and possibly Jane
Curtin would start off very politely and maintain the stayed veneer until
near the end of the segment, at which point Ackroyd, still polite and staid,
starts his reply with "Shana, you ignorant slut,..." and Curtin follows with
something equally egregious, which I can't recall. Linda and I (and the
kids, when they arrived) loved that line. Ackroyd did it so well it
cracked us up. So now when Linda and I get in a heated debate about
something, one of us will often end up using the "Shana, you ignorant slut"
line, which helps bring us up a level. So I think of this phrase "ignorant
slut" as humorous and selected it for that reason, so as not to cause too
much of a stir. Obviously, it didn't work out that way. So now I suppose I
will be known as the person who called someone an ignorant slut on CSGnet .
The fact that I didn't call anyone an ignorant slut will surely be lost to
history, like the fact that the Spanish didn't sink the Maine (remember?).
your continual accusations that I was defending Bill Williams (I merely
stated a fact - with which you now agree)
You were implicitly defending Bill Williams by saying that I should ignore
his actual insults because they were just his perception. Your bias was
revealed by the fact that you ignored the fact that whatever I said in reply
was also "just my perceptions" and should have been ignored by Bill Williams
on the same grounds.
I never disagreed with the "fact" (it's actually an inference) that you
stated -- that his comments were " his perception". I disagreed (and still
disagree) with the implication of saying they were "just" his perception
because this implies that his comments would not have been OK if they were
something other than his perception or that mine were something other than
just my perception. Since it's impossible for comments (or anything else
people do) to be anything other than perceptions, the fact that his comments
were "just his perception" was irrelevant.
In PCT, the emphasis is on control of _perception_ because, according to the
model, what is controlled is a perceptual function of (assumed) physical
variables in the environment. Any particular perceptual variable, p, is
assumed to be a function of a vector of physical variables (such as light
intensities). So, in general, p = f(v1, v2...vn). The function f()
determines what is perceived (and what has to be done in order to keep p
under control). What we control is a representation of a hypothetical
physical reality, not that reality itself.
Saying that behavior is the control of perception does not mean that what we
control is "just" perception. Perceptions are all we have; they are
reality, from our point of view. The real world -- v1, v2...vn -- is the
inference. We know about v1, v2...vn only via scientific research, based on
observation of the behavior of our perceptions under specially created
circumstances (which are also perceptions) and comparing what is observed to
the behavior of mathematical models (which are also perceptions). I think
it's quite likely that all people control what are essentially the same
perceptual variables. This would be especially true for lower level
perceptions -- colors, shapes, transitions, etc - and less true for higher
level perceptions -- principles and system concepts -- though even in these
cases I think there is evidence of considerable homology.
I think the phrase "it's just perception" incorrectly implies that
perception is less important than something else (perhaps the real
environment) when it's all we've got. It also suggests that perception is
idiosyncratic (different for each individual) when that's not necessarily
true. You might experience what we both call "red" as what I experience as
blue, but I think the evidence is strong that we are both perceiving a color
perception that is the same function of the same physical variables
(wavelengths of light). Behavior _is_ the control of perception. But once
you understand the epistemology and, more important, the implications for
modeling, behind that phrase, you can be comfortable again talking about
controlling, say, a perception of the letters on the screen _or_ the letters
on the screen, since the latter exists only as a perception, of course.
your comment that "Once you get rid of the bullying and ignorance, you also
get rid of the interminable replies (like this very post) to it."
I'm sorry. I was referring to the post I was writing, not to yours.
It is really obvious to me that you have no idea about helping others learn,
or in fact teaching something to someone.
That is certainly a possibility. Any suggestions would be greatly
appreciated.
The fact that you class me as uninformed merely because my
understanding is different to yours shows pure arrogance.
I'm sorry I implied that you were uninformed about PCT. All I know about how
informed you are is based on what you said and much of what you said seems
to reflect an understanding of PCT that is, indeed, different from mine. I
don't think you are uninformed simply _because_ your understanding is
different. But I do think that if we are not willing to reexamine our
understanding of PCT when it differs from that of someone who understands
PCT, then I think there won't be much room for learning, if there is any
learning to be done. When I find myself having a different understanding of
something PCT than does someone like Bruce Abbott, for example, who I judge
to have a very good understanding of PCT, I don't automatically assume that
my understanding is just as good as, or better than, his. I try to
re-examine the issue and see why our understandings differ. This happened a
couple years ago, when I was sure that agent A could not control the actions
of agent B, by disturbing a variable B is controlling, if B's reference for
the state of that variable was constantly (and unpredictably) changing. The
result was the demo to which I referred you
(http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Coercion.html) which proves that
Bruce was right; you can control the actions of B even if B's reference for
the controlled variable is changing randomly. So I learned by re-examining
my own understanding of PCT when it differed from that of someone who also
understands PCT.
No-one has yet said that I was wrong in what I said about the person dancing
bullets is still controlling their perceptions.
Because you're not wrong. Actually, I think I was the one who mentioned
that the person dancing must be controlling a perception of not getting shot
in the foot in order for the bad guy to exert his counter control.
I hear it from kids all the
time "Johnny made me do it". This is still not a valid excuse in my opinion
and I still believe that its our choice.
That is a personal judgment on your part, not a derivation from PCT. In
fact, Johnny did make the kid do it if Johnny disturbed a variable the kid
was controlling; after all, o = -1/g(d) when you are controlling a variable
influenced by both o and d. While it is true that the kid could have avoided
doing whatever Johnny made him do by giving up control of the variable
Johnny disturbed, I happen to think that Johnny (not the kid being provoked)
is the person without the valid excuse. Johnny is like the bad guy in the
shooting example. From your point of view the good guy doesn't have a valid
excuse for saying that the bad guy made him dance because the good guy could
have just stopped controlling for getting shot and the bad guy's shots would
then have not been able to make him dance (though then they would have made
him bleed). I think it's rather cavalier to tell the good guy or the
provoked kid that they should stop controlling for things just so that some
bully can't make them behave in a way that one considers inappropriate. I'd
rather tell the bad guy or the bully that they should change _their_
references. From my perspective, the people to be dealt with are the bad guy
and the bully, Johnny. This is not a judgment based on PCT, of course. It
just reflects my personal value system.
Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your perceptions) I believe
in this stuff and am constantly trying to improve my understanding of
it, despite your 'help' Rick.
That's really great. I'm glad you are doing this.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't necessarily make
them wrong.
Boy, do I know that! But I've also found that it's equally true that just
because someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean they're right
either.
My goal in doing PCT is not to get agreement from people but to get
agreement between model and data. I think achievement of the latter should
be the main focus of discussion in this group. I would like to see this
occur in a reasonably civil atmosphere. Perhaps that can be achieved without
moderation. We shall see.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
