Here are preliminary writings

[Philip 2014.01.28.3.08]

I have attached three papers, all of which were written before I had any idea about Bill’s PCT. These papers chronicle the development of my own thought process concerning purpose, from its origins about 3 years ago. You’ll notice that my original definition of consciousness was something akin to “the ability to define the purpose of your behavior” - whatever that meant.

Please excuse the papers if they are boring. We don’t need to actively discuss them. Nevertheless, these papers will serve to introduce all the important reasons concerning why I had to develop my own version of PCT in the first place. Ethics is the subject.

If you’ll notice, the first paper begins with a letter to my professor. This paper was the final paper I turned in for my ethics class. As you will see, I pointed out that I hadn’t exactly answered the question he gave me, but answered another question instead. The brunt of the analysis was contained in the second paper. My simple request: feedback. What I got in return, I got an F on the paper and no feedback. This is basically the reason why I was driven to push the development of my thought to its absolute extreme: I figured that people had absolutely no idea what the hell I was talking about when I said the word “purpose” and I was about 100% sure that the entire human race was going to perish very soon because it was the year 2011 and we had no idea what purpose meant and there was a New World Order about to reign in on our jubilant technological age. That, and also, because I felt it was very weird to get an F for a paper that took me a week to write (I usually dont spent that long writing anything).

The third paper is the result of my thought process orbiting the notion of purpose for about a full year. By the time I wrote that paper, I was literally at the very limit of my knowledge base and already in the midsts of a life-threatening depression. I knew my ideas were incomplete but I couldn’t push them any further because I knew literally 0 people who had any idea what I was talking about. My family was already considering me to be insane.

About a couple months later, I ran across Rick Marken’s book and I realized that somebody had already defined the purpose of behavior. And he had defined it much better than I ever could. I would not have been able to develop Bill’s theory from scratch. I simply would have died trying because my effort was too powerfully concentrated. What Bill had done over the course of 15 years, I had tried to do in 1 year. The result: I almost destroyed my brain. Luckily, salvation occured. And here we are today.

It’s been about a year that I’ve been writing my new paper. I’ll send that one out as soon as I’ve completed the part about consciousness.

paper 1.pdf (58.7 KB)

paper 2.pdf (72.4 KB)

paper 3.pdf (68.9 KB)

Good on you Philip. I also flirted with the idea of developing my own theory, then come across PCT and figured that will do nicely and 100 times better than my efforts would have been. I wish many other behavioural scientists had the same approach!
Warren

···

Sent from my iPhone

On 27 Jan 2014, at 11:10, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <pyeranos@UCLA.EDU> wrote:

[Philip 2014.01.28.3.08]

I have attached three papers, all of which were written before I had any idea about Bill's PCT. These papers chronicle the development of my own thought process concerning purpose, from its origins about 3 years ago. You'll notice that my original definition of consciousness was something akin to "the ability to define the purpose of your behavior" - whatever that meant.
Please excuse the papers if they are boring. We don't need to actively discuss them. Nevertheless, these papers will serve to introduce all the important reasons concerning why I had to develop my own version of PCT in the first place. Ethics is the subject.
If you'll notice, the first paper begins with a letter to my professor. This paper was the final paper I turned in for my ethics class. As you will see, I pointed out that I hadn't exactly answered the question he gave me, but answered another question instead. The brunt of the analysis was contained in the second paper. My simple request: feedback. What I got in return, I got an F on the paper and no feedback. This is basically the reason why I was driven to push the development of my thought to its absolute extreme: I figured that people had absolutely no idea what the hell I was talking about when I said the word "purpose" and I was about 100% sure that the entire human race was going to perish very soon because it was the year 2011 and we had no idea what purpose meant and there was a New World Order about to reign in on our jubilant technological age. That, and also, because I felt it was very weird to get an F for a paper that took me a week to write (I usually dont spent that long writing anything).
The third paper is the result of my thought process orbiting the notion of purpose for about a full year. By the time I wrote that paper, I was literally at the very limit of my knowledge base and already in the midsts of a life-threatening depression. I knew my ideas were incomplete but I couldn't push them any further because I knew literally 0 people who had any idea what I was talking about. My family was already considering me to be insane.
About a couple months later, I ran across Rick Marken's book and I realized that somebody had already defined the purpose of behavior. And he had defined it much better than I ever could. I would not have been able to develop Bill's theory from scratch. I simply would have died trying because my effort was too powerfully concentrated. What Bill had done over the course of 15 years, I had tried to do in 1 year. The result: I almost destroyed my brain. Luckily, salvation occured. And here we are today.
It's been about a year that I've been writing my new paper. I'll send that one out as soon as I've completed the part about consciousness.

<paper 1.pdf>
<paper 2.pdf>
<paper 3.pdf>

[From Richard Pfau (2014.01.27 9:44 EST)]

Warren and Philip,

The same for me. I was so disatisfied with the state of psychology that, 10 years ago, I decided to try to develop an improved model of human behavior. After a few years, I came upon Bill’s writings and felt that PCT was something that met my needs – although I may try to add a few supplemental embelishments as time goes on.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

···

-----Original Message-----

From: Warren Mansell wmansell@GMAIL.COM

To: CSGNET CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Sent: Mon, Jan 27, 2014 8:24 am

Subject: Re: Here are preliminary writings

`Good on you Philip. I also flirted with the idea of developing my own theory,

then come across PCT and figured that will do nicely and 100 times better than

my efforts would have been. I wish many other behavioural scientists had the

same approach!

Warren

Sent from my iPhone

> On 27 Jan 2014, at 11:10, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <pyeranos@UCLA.EDU> wrote:

>

> [Philip 2014.01.28.3.08]

>

> I have attached three papers, all of which were written before I had any idea

about Bill's PCT. These papers chronicle the development of my own thought

process concerning purpose, from its origins about 3 years ago. You'll notice

that my original definition of consciousness was something akin to "the ability

to define the purpose of your behavior" - whatever that meant.

> Please excuse the papers if they are boring. We don't need to actively

discuss them. Nevertheless, these papers will serve to introduce all the

important reasons concerning why I had to develop my own version of PCT in the

first place. Ethics is the subject.

> If you'll notice, the first paper begins with a letter to my professor. This

paper was the final paper I turned in for my ethics class. As you will see, I

pointed out that I hadn't exactly answered the question he gave me, but answered

another question instead. The brunt of the analysis was contained in the second

paper. My simple request: feedback. What I got in return, I got an F on the

paper and no feedback. This is basically the reason why I was driven to push

the development of my thought to its absolute extreme: I figured that people had

absolutely no idea what the hell I was talking about when I said the word

"purpose" and I was about 100% sure that the entire human race was going to

perish very soon because it was the year 2011 and we had no idea what purpose

meant and there was a New World Order about to reign in on our jubilant

technological age. That, and also, because I felt it was very weird to get an F

for a paper that took me a week to write (I usually dont spent that long writing

anything).

> The third paper is the result of my thought process orbiting the notion of

purpose for about a full year. By the time I wrote that paper, I was literally

at the very limit of my knowledge base and already in the midsts of a

life-threatening depression. I knew my ideas were incomplete but I couldn't

push them any further because I knew literally 0 people who had any idea what I

was talking about. My family was already considering me to be insane.

> About a couple months later, I ran across Rick Marken's book and I realized

that somebody had already defined the purpose of behavior. And he had defined

it much better than I ever could. I would not have been able to develop Bill's

theory from scratch. I simply would have died trying because my effort was too

powerfully concentrated. What Bill had done over the course of 15 years, I had

tried to do in 1 year. The result: I almost destroyed my brain. Luckily,

salvation occured. And here we are today.

> It's been about a year that I've been writing my new paper. I'll send that

one out as soon as I've completed the part about consciousness.

>

> <paper 1.pdf>

> <paper 2.pdf>

> <paper 3.pdf>

`