How does PCT explain where our basic characteristics come from?

[Martin Taylor 2012.01.22.16.58]]

No specific earlier reference, but I think this abstract from a paper by Evan Charney submitted to BBS for commentary might help support at least the feasibility of Bill P's suggestion that reorganization of the genome over evolutionary time might be a control process. I had been asking where the information that would have to be transmitted per gene might be transmitted, and had suggested the possibility that it might be in the so-called noncoding DNA. This abstract seems to suggest another possibility that might act at a different level than the individual genes.

···

---------------

The science of genetics is undergoing a paradigm shift. Recent discoveries, including the activity of retrotransposons, the extent of copy number variations, somatic and chromosomal mosaicism, and the nature of the epigenome as a regulator of DNA expressivity, are challenging a series of dogmas concerning the nature of the genome and the relationship between genotype and phenotype. DNA, once held to be the unchanging template of heredity, now appears subject to a good deal of environmental change; considered to be identical in all cells and tissues of the body, there is growing evidence that somatic mosaicism is the normal human condition; and treated as the sole biological agent of heritability, we now know that the epigenome, which regulates gene expressivity, can be inherited via the germline. These developments are particularly significant for behavior genetics for at least three reasons: First, these phenomena appear to be particularly prevalent in the human brain, and likely are involved in much of human behavior; second, they have important implications for the validity of heritability and gene association studies, the methodologies that largely define the discipline of behavior genetics; and third, they appear to play a critical role in development during the perinatal period, and in enabling phenotypic plasticity in offspring in particular. I examine one of the central claims to emerge from the use of heritability studies in the behavioral sciences, the principle of "minimal shared maternal effects," in light of the growing awareness that the maternal perinatal environment is a critical venue for the exercise of adaptive phenotypic plasticity. This consideration has important implications for both developmental and evolutionary biology.

------------------

I don't intend to comment on the article, but if the thought seems relevant you may want to look at it if and when it gets published, or to look for the evidence that leads to the lead statements in the abstract.

Martin

[From Rick Marken (2012.01.23.1000)]

Martin Taylor (2012.01.22.16.58)–

No specific earlier reference, but I think this abstract from a paper by Evan Charney submitted to BBS for commentary might help support at least the feasibility of Bill P’s suggestion that reorganization of the genome over evolutionary time might be a control process…

Nice to see someone still active on CSGNet. I’ve stayed out of this evolution thread because I know so little about it. But I have been thinking about it anyway and it seems to me that there might be two things going on that we call evolution. One isthe kind of change that results over a fairly short period of time as a result of “Darwin’s Hammer”. This is the kind of evolution we see in the British peppered moth, the population of which changed from predominantly light to predominantly dark (as industrial pollution increased) and then back to light again (as we liberals started cleaning things up as we always do;-). This kind of evolution (as far as I know) involved no mutation or speciation; just a change in gene frequency in response to a disturbance (predation); the light moths got eaten and the dark ones survived to reproduce. But the genetic variation that allows this kind of adaptation is already there in the population of moths, as shown by the fact that the lights again predominate when the environment changes. I see this kind of evolution as analogous to the use of an existing control system to deal with varying disturbances; the system can vary its output (coloration) to compensate for disturbances (changes in environmental coloration (that would prevent control (survival to reproduction age).

The other kind of evolution is the kind that involves mutation, which does end up producing a new species. I think this is the kind of evolution to which your posted article is relevant. I think it happens, not as a result of “Darwin’s Hammer” but simply as a result of the fact that “things could be better”. That is, there is some ambient level of intrinsic error that increases for whatever reason and drives mutation rate in the population. Mutations that result in forms that experience less intrinsic error result in a lower mutation rate in the population, converging eventually to a new organization (species). I see this kind of evolution as analogous to control by reorganization at the individual level. Where reorganization build new kinds of control systems, this second kind of evolution (call it “speciation”, perhaps) builds new kinds of organisms.

I think models of evolutionary change that include a criterion for survival are examples of the first kind of evolution (non-speciation); I don’t think there are any models of the second kind of evolution (speciation) other than Bill’s models of reorganization.

Maybe.

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

[Martin Taylor 2012.01.23.14.39]

[From Rick Marken (2012.01.23.1000)]

      Martin

Taylor (2012.01.22.16.58)–

      No specific earlier reference, but I think this abstract from

a paper by Evan Charney submitted to BBS for commentary might
help support at least the feasibility of Bill P’s suggestion
that reorganization of the genome over evolutionary time might
be a control process…

      The other kind of evolution is the kind that involves

mutation, which does end up producing a new species. I think
this is the kind of evolution to which your posted article is
relevant.

Maybe I misread the abstract, but I interpreted it as saying that

changes in gene expression, not mutations, were what they were
talking about. We know that such changes can be influenced by
environmental conditions, and we know that lots of species (maybe
all complex organisms) have “silent” or suppressed genes that have
survived from a long way back, but that can be expressed under some
circumstances.

My reason for mentioning the abstract was that my big problem with

understanding Bill’s control mechanism for evolution was that a
control system needs reference and perceptual input values, as well
as a memory for past error values if the output is an
integration-like function. I did not see how all the genes and their
expression could be under control with the available resources
passed from parents to offspring down thousands of generations (as
in Bill’s example of gradually changing sizes, such as island
dwarfism or gigantism, or in the volution of horses). This is
especially problematic when reproduction is sexual, because of the
recombination issues.

When I have a problem with understanding how a proposal could work,

I try to find all the ways it might be able to work. In this case, I
have suggested two possibilities – non-coding DNA and what I
thought I understood from the abstract – both of which seem to
offer a means for passing at least some of the information required
for control through the generations. I still don’t see the mechanism
in the way I see the within-organism control structure, but I do see
the possibility for the data to exist where it needs to exist.

Remember that Darwin knew nothing of genes, nor of Mendelian

inheritance. Natural selection is quite independent of the mechanism
of inheritance. It works no matter whether changes in the genes or
their expression are or are not involved in a control mechanism.
There’s no reason why we should talk as though evolutionary control
and natural selection were in any way opposed to one another.

Martin

[From Rick Marken (2012.01.24.0930)]

[Martin Taylor 2012.01.23.14.39]

My reason for mentioning the abstract was that my big problem with

understanding Bill’s control mechanism for evolution was that a
control system needs reference and perceptual input values, as well
as a memory for past error values if the output is an
integration-like function.

Oh, ok. Well, I never had that problem so I used your post to bring up something else I was thinking about. But apparently no one is interested so never mind.

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

BP: I have been intending to acknowledge Chad Green’s post on CSGnet for
some time, in which the following wonderful find appears:

···

At 02:57 PM 1/23/2012 -0500, you wrote:

[Martin Taylor
2012.01.23.14.39]

[From Rick Marken
(2012.01.23.1000)]

Martin Taylor (2012.01.22.16.58)–
No specific earlier reference, but I think this abstract from a paper
by Evan Charney submitted to BBS for commentary might help support at
least the feasibility of Bill P’s suggestion that reorganization of the
genome over evolutionary time might be a control process…

The other kind of evolution is the kind that involves mutation, which
does end up producing a new species. I think this is the kind of
evolution to which your posted article is relevant.

============================================================================

A Tale of Two Stories: Astrocyte Regulation of Synaptic Depression
and

Facilitation

[

](A Tale of Two Stories: Astrocyte Regulation of Synaptic Depression and Facilitation)"We devised a biophysically plausible computational model to
investigate

the characteristics of astrocyte modulation of presynaptic
short-term

plasticity. Using the model, we were able to identify the parametric

regime in which the synaptic response to action potential
stimulation

can switch from facilitating to depressing and vice versa. This
ability

to switch synaptic modus operandi depended critically on the

characteristics of astrocyte-to-synapse signaling. These findings

highlight the new potential role played by astrocytes in defining

synaptic short-term plasticity and could explain contradicting

experimental evidences."

Related news article (model attached):

More than glue: Glia cells found to regulate synapses

[

](More than glue: Glia cells found to regulate synapses « the Kurzweil Library + collections)"The model provides a ‘new view’ of how the brain functions.
While the

study was in press, two experimental works appeared that supported
the

model*s predictions. 'A growing number of scientists are starting to

recognize the fact that you need the glia to perform tasks that
neurons

alone can*t accomplish in an efficient way,’ says De Pittà."

=============================================================================

In the first paper, a Scientific American article is cited, also worth
reading:

[

](The Root of Thought: What Do Glial Cells Do? | Scientific American)All this isn’t directly relevant to your question, but it suggests
how a reorganizing system might be inheritable as a network of glia –
something I have been suspecting for some time, and commented on a few
months ago. And I read somewhere in this period that the glia are
inherited mainly from the maternal side – which is interesting because
the maternal side also passes mitochondria on directly to the offspring,
with their genetic material intact. So the recombination scrambling may
not happen when mitochondria are inherited.

There is a lot to work out here, and somebody has to do a comprehensive
review of all this new material on genetics before we can start to see
what it all means. A lot of old ideas about the genome are out the window
already, and I think even more radical changes are going to be
seen.

MT: There’s no reason why
we should talk as though evolutionary control and natural selection were
in any way opposed to one another.

BP: Right, and I haven’t been doing so. My point is that natural
selection is a very inefficient, slow, and low-resolution process, while
reorganization, when the machinery needed is produced via natural
selection, essentially takes over wherever possible because it is orders
of magnitude more efficient. Natural selection is always present and
comes into action when other systems fail; it’s just that reorganization
protects so well against selection pressures that natural selection is
not called upon very often. When was the last time you were actually in
danger of dying from starvation?

Best,

Bill P.

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Jan 24 2032 MDT]

** snip **
BP: Right, and I haven't been doing so. My point is that natural selection is a very inefficient, slow, and low-resolution process, while reorganization, when the machinery needed is produced via natural selection, essentially takes over wherever possible because it is orders of magnitude more efficient. Natural selection is always present and comes into action when other systems fail; it's just that reorganization protects so well against selection pressures that natural selection is not called upon very often. When was the last time you were actually in danger of dying from starvation?

Neandertal and Homo erectus were out of Africa and not dying of starvation for hundreds of thousands of years before modern humans emerged from Africa (about 600,000 years for Neanderthal and more that 1.1 million for erectus). They survived real climate change, repeated prolonged ice ages broken by interglacials like we are in now. If you just watched the state of the union, you heard Obama appealing to the in-group cohesion aspect of our modern human social nature, unity, our common purpose, having each others backs, etc. And, of course, demonizing and dehumanizing those who disagreed with him, the in-group discipline and factionalism and outgroup antagonism of our social natures.

Life transforms the environment, natural selection doesn't necessarily come from what are traditionally considered the "forces of nature", storms, disasters, droughts, floods, etc. Natural selection can be competition with other life forms as the Neanderthals and erectus and large numbers of our own species found out.

Natural selection can be literally as fast as a bullet or as slow as investing resources in a child who fails to reproduce or who doesn't carry your genes. There is so much cultural software and human phenotype plasticity around that it can be difficult to recognize where the hardware ends and the software begins. The "non-coding" parts of the genome are inherited as well and they are no longer assumed to be "junk" but to influence gene expression and to have been conserved by selective pressures. if you are going to make a case for a role for "reorganization" in evolution, it is ultiimately going to have to be something that was inherited influencing something that will be inherited. Simplistic talk of "mutation" fails to understand how life is currently so evolvable and how much of that evolvability is reorganization, albeit a different form of reorganization than perhaps you have in mind. Sexual reproduction is a form of reorganization that occurs every generation and operates on a legacy of accumulated variation. Dawkins made the point well, that genes are part of each others environment. Despite the limited effective population size of the human species, each human individual still is a combination of genes that has never existed before in one organism (barring perhaps identical twins). And unlike the simplistic Mendelian paradigm, most human characteristics are under the influence of multiple genes and it is not unusual to track down a promising genetic trail only to find out that a particular locus explains 5% or less of the variation, and even that might be applicable only within a particular ethnic milieu of genes.

In order to posit something new in evolutionary theory operating in our life form you are going to have to make sure it isn't already encompassed in the jungle of complexity, recombination, nonlinearity and yes, "control" allowed within the current understanding.

-- Martin L

···

On 1/24/2012 11:26 AM, Bill Powers wrote:

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2012.01.25.0840)]

Martin Lewitt (2012 Jan 24 2032 MDT)–

If you just watched the state of the union, you heard Obama appealing to the in-group cohesion aspect of our modern human social nature, unity, our common purpose, having each others backs, etc. And, of course, demonizing and dehumanizing those who disagreed with him

Gee, I didn’t hear him do any demonizing or dehumanizing. But then he really didn’t have to since there appeared to be no humans (or non-demons) among those who disagreed with him. There were just a bunch of greedy, self-righteous, hypocritical assholes – but nicely dressed assholes. I guess they wiped before entering.

RSM

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bill Powers (2011.25.09512 MST)]

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Jan 24 2032 MDT]

If you just watched the state of the union, you heard Obama appealing to the in-group cohesion aspect of our modern human social nature, unity, our common purpose, having each others backs, etc. And, of course, demonizing and dehumanizing those who disagreed with him, the in-group discipline and factionalism and outgroup antagonism of our social natures.

After Rick Marken's elegant and tasteful comment, I don't quite know what is left to do but throw up. Is that Tourette's Syndrome, or what? Or just bad potty training? Is an anus really the worst thing there is?

However, I have to agree in general that the demonizing is done primarily by the demonizees, not the complainents. Some of us consider the persistent bragging about American superiority and divine right to lead the world embarassing, not to mention disgusting, and the willingness to let the losers of competitions experience total degradation a moral crime, and the desire to make examples out of some people as a way of controlling others inexcusably selfish, arrogant, and cruel. Insensitivity to the plights of others is a sign of a crippled mind, and as we in PCT know, the urge to control other people is destructive and in the long run, futile.

That's my version of Free $peech. I wish I could afford more of it, but I'm on a modest fixed income.

Best,

Bill P.

···

At 09:38 PM 1/24/2012 -0700, you wrote:

[From Dick Robertson, 2012, 01.25.1115 CST]

Rick,

Your anger toward the guys who, I think, have spent 3 years trying to block needed improvements in our country, shows strongly. I think it’s understandable, but I also think you could be a bit less violent in your language. After all, they really are human beings, although perhaps devoted to a question ideology than to empirical results.

However, turning now to the message that provoked your response

Martin Lewitt (2012 Jan 24 2032 MDT)–
If you just watched the state of the union, you heard Obama appealing to the in-group cohesion aspect of our modern human social nature, unity, our common purpose, having each others backs, etc. And, of course, demonizing and dehumanizing those who disagreed with him

I find it extremely peculiar and wonder if the writer actually meant what he said, for, if you parse the message it seems to say that people who are against, “in-group cohesion (whatever that is), unity (of whom, please), our common purpose (that one I get) and having each others’ backs,” should not be "demonized, etc. O K maybe so, but is it praiseworthy to be against all those impulses?

Best,

Dick R

···

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.

For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com


[From Dick Robertson, 2012, 01.25.1133CST]

[From Bill Powers (2011.25.09512 MST)]

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Jan 24 2032 MDT]

As usual Bill, you put it most elegantly, wish I were that fluent, however, I would like to try and contribute a piece that, if anyone takes the time to read and respond (I know it’s a little long for our usual posts) I’d appreciate the reaction. The Wall St Journal published section titled, Squaring Off on Heath Care (2012.01.23, inviting readers’ comments. So, I wrote one. They never publish my letters, of course, but here isShouldeveryone be required to have health insurance? No, no one should be Required tohave health insurance. We need for all us Americans just to Have it, just as wehave an army and navy to defend us from foreign enemies. The health care systemis another system whose job it is to defend us all from "foreign"enemies, germs, viruses, cancers, unhealthy climate conditions, and the like.Nobody argues we should be Required to have an army and navy; it is part ofwhat a government is for. The same applies to national health. Just let anepidemic start in s poor neighborhood where most people do not have healthinsurance and spread to the rest of the country and we’d see pretty fast how weare all in this boat together. Furthermore, it doesn’t make sense forbusinesses to be saddled with this task. It came about purely as an expedientfor a crisis in the first place. No one then thought it was a particularly goodidea, and it results in unnecessary complexity, duplication of services and otherinefficiencies. As for the criticism against medicare for all–that it iswasteful and would cause rationing, I’m a medicare patient and haven’t beenrationed yet. On the other hand look at the forty six million people in ourpopulation whose wait is forever. Talk about rationing. Yes, medicare could dobetter, if leading medical training centers were more involved with a healthsystem where all doctors could participate, without being merely employees. Ihave yet to see evidence that the whole medicare system has more waste than thetotality of the private health insurance industry where an inordinateamount of the premiums goes into overhead rather than patient care what I said,

Best to all,

Dick R

···

From: Bill Powers powers_w@FRONTIER.NET
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:15 am

At 09:38 PM 1/24/2012 -0700, you wrote:



This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com


[From Fred Nickols (2012.01.25.1053 AZT)

I agree with Dick.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Robertson Richard
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:39 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: How does PCT explain where our basic characteristics come from?

[From Dick Robertson, 2012, 01.25.1133CST]

From: Bill Powers powers_w@FRONTIER.NET
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:15 am

[From Bill Powers (2011.25.09512 MST)]

At 09:38 PM 1/24/2012 -0700, you wrote:

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Jan 24 2032 MDT]

As usual Bill, you put it most elegantly, wish I were that fluent, however, I would like to try and contribute a piece that, if anyone takes the time to read and respond (I know it’s a little long for our usual posts) I’d appreciate the reaction. The Wall St Journal published section titled, Squaring Off on Heath Care (2012.01.23, inviting readers’ comments. So, I wrote one. They never publish my letters, of course, but here isShouldeveryone be required to have health insurance? No, no one should be Required tohave health insurance. We need for all us Americans just to Have it, just as wehave an army and navy to defend us from foreign enemies. The health care systemis another system whose job it is to defend us all from "foreign"enemies, germs, viruses, cancers, unhealthy climate conditions, and the like.Nobody argues we should be Required to have an army and navy; it is part ofwhat a government is for. The same applies to national health. Just let anepidemic start in s poor neighborhood where most people do not have healthinsurance and spread to the rest of the country and we’d see pretty fast how weare all in this boat together. Furthermore, it doesn’t make sense forbusinesses to be saddled with this task. It came about purely as an expedientfor a crisis in the first place. No one then thought it was a particularly goodidea, and it results in unnecessary complexity, duplication of services and otherinefficiencies. As for the criticism against medicare for all–that it iswasteful and would cause rationing, I’m a medicare patient and haven’t beenrationed yet. On the other hand look at the forty six million people in ourpopulation whose wait is forever. Talk about rationing. Yes, medicare could dobetter, if leading medical training centers were more involved with a healthsystem where all doctors could participate, without being merely employees. Ihave yet to see evidence that the whole medicare system has more waste than thetotality of the private health insurance industry where an inordinateamount of the premiums goes into overhead rather than patient care what I said,

Best to all,

Dick R



This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com


[From Rick Marken (2012.01.25.10130)]

Bill Powers (2011.25.09512 MST)–

After Rick Marken’s elegant and tasteful comment, I don’t quite know what is left to do but throw up.

I think you wrote a pretty good comment yourself but I am a tough act to follow.

Insensitivity to the plights of others is a sign of a crippled mind, and as we in PCT know, the urge to control other people is destructive and in the long run, futile.

I think you are right about their insensitivity to the plight of others. But I don’t think these people have an urge to control others. They just don’t care about whether others are able to be in control themselves (by being able, for example, to make enough to support a family and put some away for retirement, as Obama mentioned in his talk).

I think those of the conservative/libertarian perspective are attracted to PCT because they already agree that control of other people (particularly other people controlling them) is no good. The aspect of PCT that they usually ignore is the part that says that people are controllers and are at their best when they are in control of the variables that matter to them.

Maybe that’s the difference between liberals and conservatives, in PCT terms. Liberals seem to be more focused on policies that are aimed at making sure that everyone in the society is in control of what they need to be in control of; conservatives seem to be more focused on policies that prevent people from controlling them. For liberals, freedom is mainly about being in control; for conservatives freedom is mainly about not being controlled. Extremely liberal people are the annoying do gooders while extremely conservative people are the paranoid schizophrenics (I’ve know three people who went nuts and in every case their insanity took the form of certainty that space aliens or the “government” was going to do something bad to them soon). I’ll take the do-gooders any day, annoying though they be.

That’s my version of Free $peech. I wish I could afford more of it, but I’m on a modest fixed income.

You need a Super PAC.

Best

Rick

···

Best,

Bill P.


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bill Powers (2011.01.25.1240 MST)]

To Rick Marken (2012.01.25.10130) --

RM: Maybe that's the difference between liberals and conservatives, in PCT terms. Liberals seem to be more focused on policies that are aimed at making sure that everyone in the society is in control of what they need to be in control of; conservatives seem to be more focused on policies that prevent people from controlling them.

BP: I think that gets close to the differences I've noticed. Conservatives seem to be afraid all the time, perhaps because they tend to be richer than liberals and have more to protect or lose.

RM: For liberals, freedom is mainly about being in control; for conservatives freedom is mainly about not being controlled.

BP: That's well put. Have you noticed how many liberals are so helpful that they start controlling you, too? The "annoying do gooders" you mention. They want to change your diet, to get you to start taking their favorite pills, to yank all your old-fashioned light bulbs and screw in energy-savers (at your expense, however). But conservatives seem to want freedom partly so they, too, can control other people (such as employees, gays, unions, atheists, and the rest of a long list of people whose values they consider to be lacking or flawed).

I always wonder just why conservatives are so dead-set against paying their fair share and living with regulations. There are certainly stupid taxes and stupid regulations, but when someone is so adamant about doing away with regulations and laws, I can't help wondering what they want to do that is illegal now. In the past, the kind of people who are now subject to regulations indulged in excesses of fraud, coercion, and indifference to suffering, which is what brought the regulations into being in the first place. After a certain number of people have lost their fingers in circular saws or shearing machines without safety shields, the business owner who doesn't want to be told to spend money on safety measures is simply forced to do so, or is put out of business. Is that the kind of regulation conservatives want to get rid of? As far as I can tell, it is. OSHA is really hated by most of the manufacturing businessmen I have come in contact with.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2012.01.25.1700)]

Bill Powers (2011.01.25.1240 MST)–

RM: For liberals, freedom is mainly about being in control; for conservatives freedom is mainly about not being controlled.

BP: That’s well put. Have you noticed how many liberals are so helpful that they start controlling you, too?

RM: Of course. But I am not upset by being controlled when I’ve agreed to it. Cooperation involves mutual control, always, I think. We just don’t see it because it’s rare that people have to take action to enforce this kind of control.

BP: There are certainly stupid taxes and stupid regulations, but when someone is so adamant about doing away with regulations and laws, I can’t help wondering what they want to do that is illegal now.

RM: Yes, and it’s kind of a tragedy since it prevents useful dialog. Politics makes sense when it’s about which taxes and regulations are wise and which are stupid. But now we’ve got one political party which is committed to the idea that all taxes and all regulations are bad. Not much room for going up a level there;-) Ergo, my exasperation.

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Jan 25 2248 MST]

  [From

Dick Robertson, 2012, 01.25.1115 CST]

  Rick,



  Your anger toward the guys who, I think, have spent 3 years trying

to block needed improvements in our country, shows strongly. I
think it’s understandable, but I also think you could be a bit
less violent in your language. After all, they really are human
beings, although perhaps devoted to a question ideology than to
empirical results.

The conservatives in Congress were happy to make needed

improvements, including tax reform and reforming entitlement
spending. There were proposals pretty close to what Obama’s
bi-partisan commission recommended. The disagreement must be over
what is “needed”.

  However, turning now to the message that provoked your response

Martin Lewitt (2012 Jan 24 2032 MDT)–
If you just watched the state of the
union, you heard Obama appealing to the in-group cohesion
aspect of our modern human social nature, unity, our common
purpose, having each others backs, etc. And, of course,
demonizing and dehumanizing those who disagreed with him

      I find it extremely peculiar and wonder if the writer actually

meant what he said, for, if you parse the message it seems to
say that people who are against, “in-group cohesion (whatever
that is), unity (of whom, please), our common purpose (that
one I get) and having each others’ backs,” should not be
"demonized, etc. O K maybe so, but is it praiseworthy to be
against all those impulses?

I guess it was a mistake to use Obama as an example because it

completely distracted from the intended points about evolutionary
theory. My reference to Obama, was merely meant as a timely
example of an appeal to universal aspects of modern human’s social
nature. Note that you assume that in-group cohesion and discipline
are good, that is quite natural. But these evolved in much smaller
social groups and can be seen as vulnerabilities in mass society.
I could have used the equally timely NFL team identification and the
demonization of and threats against those who missed field goals and
muffed punts. The Nazi’s also valued unity and having each other’s
backs, and displaying hatred and demonizing those declared not
reliably one of them was socially acceptable and even praiseworthy.

With effort we can avoid falling prey to such jingoist appeals to a

national or racial collective identities and consider whether we
should be lavishing resources upon others just because they are
“Americans” and others in the world are not.

-- Martin L
···

http://www.symanteccloud.com

Richard Pfau [2012.01.26 2130 EST]

Regarding [Martin Lewitt 2012 Jan 25 2248 MST]

ML: I guess it was a mistake to use Obama as an example because it completely distracted from the intended points about evolutionary theory.

RP: Yes, I noticed that too. Martin made some interesting points about evolutionary theory in his post [Martin Lewit 2012 Jan 24 2032 MDT] but then the discussion went off on a tangent triggered by the Obama example – a tangental discussion that did not touch on the major points that he raised.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts from those on the list to help understand a question about PCT I have! As I read more I do have a much better idea of the framework of PCT and how the mind works and how we learn. I am currently stuck trying to figure out how it explains characteristics we are born with and I have tried some searches but haven’t come up with anything that helps.

Here is the example that got me thinking about it: I was watching my two dogs, great dane and vizsla, who are very different, and, as with other dog breeds, are bred to have certain characteristics, temperaments, degrees of sociability, etc. Where do these bred characteristics come from and how are they dealt with in PCT?

Would these be higher level reference points the dogs are born with through genetic coding? I am just trying to wrap my mind around this…

Andrew Speaker

Lions For Change

3040 Peachtree Rd, Suite 312

Atlanta, Ga. 30305

404-913-3193

www.LionsForChange.com

“Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined.” – Henry David Thoreau

[from Tracy B. Harms (2011-12-05 13:06 Eastern)]

Hi, Andrew.

Basic PCT does not explain the origin of control structures, except insofar as it explains things that originate as the result of control. Such things may themselves be controlled variables, or may be emergent properties of the results of successful control.

Some people, such as Gary Cziko and myself, rely on evolutionary theory as an additional theory that complements PCT. It is not, however, tied in any formal way, much as we may appreciate what we see as their compatability. An infinite range of competing theories of origin could be equally compatable with PCT.

–Tracy

···

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:33 PM, andrew speaker andrew@lionsforchange.com wrote:

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts from those on the list to help understand a question about PCT I have! As I read more I do have a much better idea of the framework of PCT and how the mind works and how we learn. I am currently stuck trying to figure out how it explains characteristics we are born with and I have tried some searches but haven’t come up with anything that helps.

PCT is not about dogs but about human beings; there is a difference in control systems for these species. Recent work in epigenetics indicates that humans have less that is “hard wired” than we suspected in the past. The more we explore the more we find out about the plasticity of the brain and the more we know about changing the brain. PCT can not go beyond the research that we know about, so keep looking.

Chuck Tucker

···

Here is the example that got me thinking about it: I was watching my two dogs, great dane and vizsla, who are very different, and, as with other dog breeds, are bred to have certain characteristics, temperaments, degrees of sociability, etc. Where do these bred characteristics come from and how are they dealt with in PCT?

Would these be higher level reference points the dogs are born with through genetic coding? I am just trying to wrap my mind around this…

Andrew Speaker

Lions For Change

3040 Peachtree Rd, Suite 312

Atlanta, Ga. 30305

404-913-3193

www.LionsForChange.com

“Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined.�? � Henry David Thoreau

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

From: andrew speaker

Sent: Dec 5, 2011 12:33 PM

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Subject: How does PCT explain where our basic characteristics come from?

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts from those on the list to help understand a question about PCT I have! As I read more I do have a much better idea of the framework of PCT and how the mind works and how we learn. I am currently stuck trying to figure out how it explains characteristics we are born with and I have tried some searches but haven’t come up with anything that helps.

[from Tracy B. Harms (2011-12-05 16:18 Eastern)]

Why would PCT not be about dogs? I’m very surprised any time somebody sees PCT as peculiar to human psychology.

–Tracy

···

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Charles W. Tucker profcwt@earthlink.net wrote:

PCT is not about dogs but about human beings; there is a difference in control systems for these species. Recent work in epigenetics indicates that humans have less that is “hard wired” than we suspected in the past. The more we explore the more we find out about the plasticity of the brain and the more we know about changing the brain. PCT can not go beyond the research that we know about, so keep looking.

Chuck Tucker