[From Bill Powers (2000.08.10.0418 MDT)]
Kenny Kitzke (2000.08.09.0700EDT)--
<Bill Powers (2000.08.07.1229 MDT)>
<Everything you propose, it seems to me, can be handled under existing
levels dealing with logic, principles, and system concepts -- except the
last one which deals with absolute right and wrong. In your system concept,
I assume, absolute right and wrong are dictated by God.>
I shall try to focus on two of your stated assumptions:
1) Absolute right or wrong within humans
2) Current HPCT handles all aspects of human behavior; except 1)
*****1) Absolute right or wrong within humans
"Absolute" probably does have the connotation of being dictated by "God." I
personally believe that. And, I use the Bible to determine what those
absolute right or wrongs for man are.
Are you saying, Kenny, that if it were not for the Bible, you would have no
reason to adopt principles like avoiding murder, adultery, and
covetousness, or like seeking honesty and loving-kindness with respect to
your fellow creatures, to name a few? Are morality and ethics the exclusive
province of believers in one or another religion? When you answer, Kenny,
remember the specific people to whom you're talking here.
Of course, we both are aware that
other human beings neither accept any God, nor believe in that God, but have
a different God with different books containing absolute truths of right and
wrong. I recognize that any believable theory of human behavior has to
scientifically explain what all these types of people do.
This is one of my main reasons for rejecting any of these different
concepts of absolute right and wrong. They can't all be right. Beliefs in
different religious systems differ from each other, and in fact even within
one religion, different parts of the literature disagree with other parts.
In the Bible, we find one part of God's Word saying that we should turn the
other cheek when others despitefully use us, and another part saying that
we should exact an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Believers, of
course, say that such apparent contradictions would not seem like
contradictions if we understood their whole meaning, and that much of the
Bible simply illustrates that God's ways are beyond mortal understanding
and must simply be accepted.
As you know, I am not inclined to accept explanations like that.
A better term for what I am proposing may be "Universal" right or wrong.
That is concepts of right and wrong that are in, and *naturally held* by the
vast preponderance of human beings (recognizing that there will be some
exceptions such as the mentally incapable or deranged or intentionally
defiant, defined I suppose by the same vast preponderance).
The best way to determine what the vast preponderance of people actually
believe (which may be very different from what they are willing to _say_
they believe) is to watch how they combat disturbances. I think the
evidence is that large numbers of people will cheat, lie, steal, kill, and
in general break every one of the Ten Commandments, when some disturbance
(particular by another human being) threatens their way of life. The Bible
says we are all sinners, and only by the grace of God can we hope for
salvation. What does that say about the concepts of right and wrong that
people adopt? It seems to me that all you can make of that is that we all
know what right and wrong are, but deliberately, perversely, and stupidly
prefer to do what we ourselves believe is wrong. That is like saying that
control systems try to increase their error signals instead of decrease
them. I don't believe that: it's a direct contradiction of PCT, as well as
common sense. People behave as they do because they think they are doing
the right thing. What do you think the chaplains were there for, in that
barrel-shoot called the Gulf War? A Moslem Saudi Arabian thinks, for
religious (and probably other) reasons, that the right thing to do with a
thief is to cut off his hands; an Iranian fundamentalist thinks that the
right thing to do with a woman is to keep her pregnant, ignorant, and
sealed off from the world. Do they think they are doing right or doing wrong?
IOW, do the vast preponderance of humans believe it is wrong to take (steal)
another person's possessions or even take their life (murder) against the
other persons will? Do the vast preponderance of humans believe it is right
to allow every person to hold their own belief about the existence of and
worship of a divine god-being (religion)?
No to both, but especially the second idea, particularly when we are
discussing the freedom _not_ to believe. People certainly object to murder
when they see themselves or those they love as the victims, but most people
can be talked into comitting, or at least actively supporting, murder when
they think there is a good reason for it -- for example, the fear that a
possibly communistic island nation in the Caribbean (Grenada) will invade
and take over the United States. And we as a nation have prepared to
destroy a huge country in part because the political system the people
espouse is "godless."
You should subscribe to the Durango Herald. We have plenty of
fundamentalists around here who write letters advocating such things as
that non-Christians be ejected from positions of power and claiming that
this country was created by God for the sake of white Christians only.
If we polled the 6 billion people on earth, as scientifically as we know how,
would the vast preponderance accept these rights and wrongs? I feel they
would. It would be this innate sense about right or wrong that is naturally
in all humans irrespective of their particular life experiences. It is part
of their basic human nature.
I'm sure that given the right circumstances, people can work out for
themselves why it is better to behave in certain ways as opposed to other
ways. So we should not be surprised that over the centuries, there are been
some people who have worked out principles much like those in the Bible.
But to have the leisure, education, and security needed to work out such
things is beyond most people.
There is an innate sense of right and wrong in human beings only in one way
(according to PCT): no human being who is functioning well will
deliberately act overtly (out of deference to Mark Lazarre) to increase his
or her own error signals. To every person, the reference signals that exist
in that person _are_ what is right. People try to justify their actions in
such a way that others would agree that the actions were motivated by good
reasons; they do not explain that they did what they did in order to be
wrong. Yet people disagree sharply about what is right. Milikan thought his
sale of junk bonds to gullible poor and old people was just a normal way to
do business -- he asked, "what's wrong with making a profit?" Of course the
people made destitute by falling for his pitch had an entirely different
view of the morality of what he did.
IMO, the God part revolves more about how
humans got to be that way than whether they are that way. And, this is a
matter of faith (belief) rather than science.
Well, how do you suppose some people have got to be against murdering other
people? Was this entirely and only because God told them not to do it? If
God hadn't told them that, do you think no person would ever have worked
out any reasons for making murder socially unacceptable?
I think Hugh Gibbons was at the same point in understanding (or speculation)
when he used the idea of "respect for other humans" as being "apriori" and a
first cause that is in all humans in his chain derivation of where law comes
from in all societies.
He didn't say that respect for other human beings is innate. It's an axiom
which some people in the legal profession appear to have adopted (while
others have not). The adoption of this axiom can be defended in many ways,
including comparing experiences when it is in effect and when it's not.
There's no reason to believe that this axiom exists only because God put it
there. It's a logical outcome of long experience -- and there was certainly
a time when this axiom did _not_ govern human legal affairs. There are
still places in the world where the axiom is definitely not adopted. For
example if a woman's will is to use contraception in order not to become
pregnant again, how much respect for her will would there be in the Vatican?
Now, if we assume:
• wrong to steal
• wrong to murder
• right to religion
• right to respect others (if we want to be respected...golden rule)
are beliefs or principles at the 10 level of your currently proposed HPCT,
perhaps we have a model that will handle such Universal rights or wrongs, at
least on an individual, and perhaps on a societal (aggregate) model of human
interaction?
It is my understanding that HPCT proposes that such beliefs become reference
perceptions by your proposed "reorganization" mechanism. I think this is a
clear example of where we disagree.
So how do we handle the disagreement? Should you say you think you are
right because you believe in God, and should I answer that I think I am
right because I don't believe in God? That doesn't sound like much of a
discussion.
In this regard, and with all due respect, I feel your habit of using PCT
specific defined lingo for common phenomena or function (comparator rather
than mind) contributes to the difficultly in people understanding PCT and
accepting your theory.
An even bigger difficulty arises when people read their own interpretations
into what I say and then assume I believe the same. A comparator receives
two signals, a perceptual signal and a reference signal, and outputs an
error signal that indicates the difference between these inputs. That is
_all_ it does; it is a simple subtractor. Every control system has to have
one. I don't now how you came to associate this elementary function with
"mind", a function of a whole brain with all its control systems and all
its levels.
And, when you start proposing "cosmic dogs or
humans," I fail to see how you cannot perceive yourself to be as unscientific
and absurd as those who propose a cosmic God.
That was a joking reference to the fact there there do, indeed, appear to
be patterns of behavior identifiable in each species. The "cosmic" part
would be recognized as a joke by anyone except a person who believed that
supernatural cosmic beings really exist, and thought I believed in them,
too. I don't really believe that there is a supernatural cosmic dog or
person somewhere after which all real dogs, or all real persons, are
patterned. I can recognize that there are some real similarities within
species, and admit that I don't have any good explanation for them, without
admitting that they are there for supernatural reasons.
I want point out that none of my proposals about human nature and behavior
and how humans work are based on a premise of the existence of God,
especially the God in which I have faith. God was not mentioned in my
presentation of "Who am I?" at the CSG conference.
Your explanation of where these characteristics come from is explicitly
based on belief in God. By implication, _what_ they are also came from God.
In HPCT they come from two processes: reorganization within a single
lifetime, and evolution over geological time spans. Your proposals are
based on the idea that the spiritual aspects of a person could not arise as
a consequence of either reorganization or evolution, but could _only_ have
come from a supernatural Creator.
The human "spirit," that I did mention, which I believe HPCT must explicitly
recognize in its theory and model, before it will be widely accepted, or
valued as a new life science, also has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit of
God or with an intangible spirit or soul within humans.
I haven't seen much in the things you propose as being "spiritual" that
couldn't be part of one or more existing levels in the current model. Only
one proposal strikes me as reasonable: the idea that if we are at all aware
of a system concept or a set of them, we must be observing from a
higher-level point of view, even if only in a limited way. But from what
you have said of system concepts, I can't be sure you really grasp what I
mean by that level. The concept of a person as a body, a mind, and a spirit
is a system concept, as I view that level. The concept of God and his
relation to human beings and the universe is a system concept. Concepts of
right and wrong (whether absolute or not) aren't even at that level: they
are principles.
********2) Current HPCT handles all aspects of human behavior; except 1)
I propose giving you some examples of fairly common human behavior and ask
you to explain it in HPCT current terminology. I am not opposed to being
persuaded and convinced that you are right and I am wrong. You will, in
fact, remove some conflict or error that I feel now. It may be my lack of
understanding your theory rather than a deficiency of incompleteness in your
theory that is behind my error signals.
I'm quite willing to go through such a procedure, but only if it doesn't
lead to harm. You have adopted your present system concepts for reasons
knowable only to you; your strong defense of them indicates to me that the
reasons were important to you. While you say that you're willing to be
persuaded of a different view, that willingness might change if you began
to feel the assurance and comfort that you now obtain from your beliefs
starting to slip away. System concepts are extremely important; they are
neither adopted nor abandoned without a serious inner struggle. They are in
large part what make us human. I'm just pointing out the nature of what we
would be getting into.
I agree that it is a dangerous idea that inspiration we feel come from God.
And, many religions, including Christianity, think that way. I reject, for
example, any inspiration that says to a Moslem, murder Jews to the glory of
Allah. Or, any inspiration to a Christian that says murder those who will
not accept Jesus as Christ and the Son of God to the glory of the Father. I
reject that by natural law, our human spirit. I also do not believe that the
Bible teaches men to do so by their own inspiration. It would in fact be
wrong on both accounts.
But is not the Bible said, by the Bible itself, to be the directly-relayed
Word of God, or words inspired by God? If the Bible is fallible, then
surely the origin of the Bible, as set down in that book, is the first
thing one has to question, for if the Bible is merely the invention of
human beings without God's guidance, it merits no more respect than any
other book written by a human being. Considering the moral and spiritual
issues with which it deals, that is still a great deal of respect, but it
does not call for total surrender of the intellect, with a blanket
declaration of belief.
Again, we agree. 
I do not trust my own inspirations. I do trust the
Bible. And, when my mind produces thoughts inconsistent with it, I am very
cautious before acting on my rational thought or inspiration, however
derived, even after prayer.
But if you do trust the Bible, aren't you trusting someone else's
inspiration? The Bible was translated, interpreted, written, and published
by human beings -- in fact, several sets of human beings, each producing a
slightly different result. A comittee decided what books would go into the
Bible, and which would not (the Apocrypha). So put yourself in the shoes of
one of the people who wrote one of the Bible versions. If you were that
person, how would you decide whether something you wrote down was your own
idea, or was inspired by God?
I think you read my paper on "Human Nature: PCT versus the Bible" which I
handed out last year at the Conference to anyone who was interested. It was
in fact you who suggested it not be presented.
That was not in the spirit of censorship. I thought there was a chance that
the response might turn nasty and wanted to spare you that.
In fact, I found your theory of behavior consistent
with the Bible. That is why I keep coming to the conference, keep studying
PCT on this net, and trying and continuing to try to advance the science of
the behavior of living things. My disagreement with you is over your
concepts and comments about human nature, and that is more related to what I
perceive as their incompleteness rather than their errancy.
So do we begin this discussion with your being convinced that PCT is
correct only to the extent that it agrees with the Bible, and that if it
disagrees with the Bible on any issue, it must automatically be incorrect?
Your examples about the story of Abraham are simply your perceptions of what
was going on. Because they are different from mine, and we have different
intents, we come to different conclusions. If you want to get into that, we
can do so privately, off CSGNet, as I doubt too many are interested in your
personal view or mine.
I think the subject of interpretations is of general interest. Here we have
a text which, apparently, means one thing to you and something else to me.
An important issue is how much effort or trouble is required to arrive at
one meaning rather than another. Another issue is the circularity of the
interpretation: Do I interpret the words as indicating the reality of God
because anyone would interpret them that way, or only because I already
believe in God and therefore pick the interpretation that supports my belief?
It does not matter how [higher levels] got there for HPCT purposes. It
only >matters if we
can scientifically hypothesize, and perhaps test, whether there are such
higher levels or control mechanisms. And, I think you have proposed a higher
or different function you call the reorganization system in man that can look
down on the mental hierarchy of perceptions and add to or change them. This
is not opposed to the spirit of man which I claim is in man. I think you
sort of acknowledged some congruency there at the conference?
I do not see the reorganizing system as a "higher" function. It does not
perceive the hierarchy at all; it perceives only those intrinsic variables
that it tries to control, and most of those I have been able to think about
are physiological variables. The only thing I can correlate with what you
call the "spirit of man" is the Observer that we seem to find in the MOL.
But the Observer doesn't seem to have enough properties to satisfy your
idea of a spirit -- what I know of it, anyway.
But if you make up
your own mind about that, you could be wrong, in which case you would be
defying God. Is this not a terrible intellectual trap?>
Not for me. For the Truth I believe also addresses the trap and makes the
conflict disappear like smoke, almost like MOL.
The trap is the fact that the "Truth" is true only if you believe it, but
if you _mistakenly_ disbelieve it (that is, you disbelieve but God actually
does exist), you will be damned. Therefore, if you go only this far, you
have no choice but to believe. The risks of disbelieving _mistakenly_ are
just too great: if God exists after all, you are in for Hell, literally.
Also, since if God exists as advertized you can't hide anything from God,
you can't simply give lip service to this belief, "try it on for size." God
knows whether you _really_ believe or not. So you have to believe in your
inner thoughts, not just in outward appearances. If you believe in God,
your choice is between eternal bliss and eternal damnation, and there's
really only one conclusion you can reach. To implement it, however, you
must change your inner self, not just what you say or do, and once you do
that, God exists for you, and as far as you're concerned has all the power
you guessed God might have. That's the trap: once you believe, the future
rewards and punishments become real to you, and you can't afford even to
consider disbelieving. It's easy to fall into this trap, and almost
impossible to get out of it again.
If you disbelieve in God, and if the truth is that God really doesn't
exist, then of course you are in no danger of damnation and there will be
no reward, either. The whole thing becomes a non-issue. But the trap always
yawns at your feet: the slopes that lead into it are slippery indeed.
I see that differently Bill. If God actually exists, your mind has trapped
you. And, your eternal damnation is assured by your choice.
But that's only true if God does exist. If there really is no God, then
your belief is a self-deception, but one that you dare not recognize
precisely because of what the belief entails. You believe that you will
lose your eternal reward and gain damnation by not believing. If that is
true, or you even think it's true, what choice have you but to maintain
your belief? The belief then has nothing to do with whether God does or
does not exist. All that's needed is for you to accept the _possibility_ as
real. That's the first step on the slippery slope.
This weekend I'll start with some behavioral cases that I hope you or the
forum will explain with the current model of HPCT.
OK, but make sure you include enough detail for us to judge the reality of
the cases for ourselves. Just telling us that something happened, or
someone said that something happened, is not enough. I'm not going to try
to explain anything unless I'm pretty sure it really happened.
BTW, my mother-in-law is
visiting so it solves a conflict for me to "need to" spend time at the
computer this weekend more than to spend the time with the fine lady.
Best regards to you and Mary. I am sorry for being loud or preachy to her
perception.
Not only hers. But not all of us felt affected by it.
Best,
Bill P.
I do not trust my own inspirations. I do trust the