I’m sorry Bruce that my answer is so late.
I’ll still need an answer to a question :
HB earlier : How did you know that my presentation would be useful for next generations of PCT members if I post it on Discourse, if you didn’t see my presentation ???
BN : I had no ideas about your presentation at all, because I had not seen it at that time.
HB : If you had no ideas about my presentation why did you changed your mind from criticizing me that my knowledge is worthless to high valued knowledge which should be explained here on Discourse and even saved for next gnerations? What was the reason for your decision to change your mind about me?
In topic “Request to remove member….” (probably opened for me) you and some members talked about how to remove me from CSGnet and Discourse etc. Well you can read it in the topic so that I’ll not copy-paste yours and others accusations from there.
Obviously I was extrem “disturbance” to your and some others way of thinking like of course Rick and Warren and Rupert, Lynndall, Malou, Specially Richard Kennaway was inovative in insulting me. The dawn of civilization. So my knowledge was worthless, my “bear” thinking unacceptable and now I’m wellcome on the Discourse org. Why?
Really what was the cause of such a change??? I’d like to hear all those members that wanted to dump me, if they accept my “comeback”???
But I must emphasize that I was surprised as you (specially Rick) that there were no more members who hated me. Obvioulsy most of members approved my scientific view on PCT.
So in that time I deserved to vanish. But now suddenly you changed your mind and I’m wellcome. You even wanted me to explain my presentation here and you even want that my presentation is available to next generations. Why that changed? What caused that change from not welcome to being welcome?
I would really like that answer if we want to go forward with trust and mutual understanding.
BN : This is a forum for discussing and developing PCT. For us to understand your ideas as proposals for PCT, we have to see how your ideas relate to PCT as we understand it. What is the same, what are the differences? It is up to you communicate those relationships.
HB : Well many things about differences and similarities between PCT and “autopoiesis” (Maturana) and “Dynamic systems” (Ashby) are quite clearly explaind in my presentation.
Detailes about nervous system are quite complex. All is about how organisms function. And that is relation also between PCT and organisms functioning, We know from Bill that PCT is general theory about organisms functioning.
I know apoximatelly how you understand PCT, although it’s just prediction because we had many discussions and mainly I could see that most of you understood PCT as RCT (Ricks Control Theory). Is that still so? That was the biggest problem on CSGnet.
If that is so then you probably want me to start explaining differences between PCT, RCT and DBCS (Dynamic Biological Control Sysems). Is that what you would like?
BN : That explanation will be useful. I really don’t understand it at all. Arrows without labels and explanations not helpful at all.
BN : All I did was describe the diagram. I described the part that looks like it might correspond to the HPCT hierarchy (with the central I/O arrows going up and down and a loop through the environment). The implicit question is, “Is that right?
HB : Diagram with arrows is not only harmonized witth Wiener, Ashby, Powers and Maturana but also with contemporary findings in physiology and neurophysiology. So as far as actual scientific knowledge is concerned diagram should be right. I can’t uncover too much informations if I want my second presentation on Cybernetics Society to be original.
BN : You’re safe. I am incapable of stealing what I do not perceive.
HB : We both know that my knowledge is not safe on Discourse org. Mostly because of Rick who already has stolen my knowledge from CSGnet forum and presented it as his own. And I’m still waiting for your information what made you change your mind from thinking that I’m a “criminal” to thinking that I’m man with worth knowledge?
This is funadamental to evaluate how safe I’m on discourse. If I’m honest I don’t know yet if I can trust anybody except Martin, who already told me that I can’t trust him. But I think I can trust to Richard Pfau, Bruce A., Kent, Fred, Frank… maybe Eva…
I really don’t know what will happen if you’ll perceive what you want. I didn’t have time on FIRST presentation to explain in detail last diagram so it will be explained in detail on next presentation with other missing parts about organims functioning. As I wrote before I want to keep my originality.
You pointed out problem of understanding arrows between “control areas”. These are just main connections. Bilions of connections are not shown. And it can’t be because of complexity of connections in nervous system. One neuron can be connected to 10.000 of other neurons. So the only way if you don’t want to fall into same trap as Neuroscience and Cognitive science did, you’ll have to understand heuristicaly how control works in organism. And DBCS is basis for that.
This is why method of reasearching connections and functoions of control regions, areas, which is used by Neuroscience or Cognitive science or etc. science will result in nothing as Bill also predicted and Henry Yin presented in totaly lost book “Interdisciplinary Handbook”. Henry Yin’s article and some of them doesn’t belong there because they are from other dimensions than most of other articles are. My critics of the book is in Fundamentals.
In my presentation the method for researching nervous system is quite different and less complex as actual knowledge of mentioned two sciences is (Neuroscience and Cognitive Science).
CUA (Control Unit Analyses) view which was started by Bill Powers and then strongly upgraded by me is much simpler and easy to understand when you once get right grasp. But you didn’t want to listen to me, when I was repeating basis of PCT and organisms functioning almost 10 years. You rather dumped me.
I’ll never understand Bill why he didn’t want cooperation with me as we already created in our discoussions common view of “Control Unit Analyses” (CUA) of nervous system. After I proposed arrow from genetic surce to “intrinsic variables” and proposed cooperation, he never answered to me.
I hope that you understand anyway why I’d like to promote history role of Bill Powers in Cybernetics as much as in Psychology. THE METHOD OF CUA and “Control of perception” is by my oppinion the only possible way to understand brain functioning and consequently organisms functioning.
O.K. let us say that me and you started with connections of “inputs and outputs” in brain, but that is only the beggining. Analyzing connections between 100 bilions of neurons is too complex task. You need some integrating knowledge what you’ll see in my next presentation,
BN : Let me tell you what some of my controlled variables are here, so you don’t have to guess any more. I’ve already told you that I don’t care at all about precedence.
HB : From my next presentation you’ll also see why thinking in terms of control variables (CV) in external environment is not appropriate method for analysing organisms control. That’s why Bill Powers didn’t put CV into his diagram LCS III (2008). Because it has no sense to isolate CV in such complexitiy of CV’s in organism which are in control process in the same time. It’s simply too complex.
It can be maybe succesfully used in such a simple task as “tracking experiment” is, because sensory-motor connection’s are so short that can produce necesary speed for illusion of control.
But most of connections in nervous system are not in direct “sensory motor” connections, so complex analyses shoud be used like CUA.
BN : Here are four linked CVs that are important to me in this context:
The success of PCT.
(Priniple level) Supporting (1), the success and growth of IAPCT as a professional organization. This is something that Bill asked me to do in the 1990s and I was unable to even consider it, given the circumstances of my life at that time. I hold to advice attributed to Lao Tzu: “The best leadership is when the people have done it themselves.” Expect me to step back from prominence, because I will when I can.
Supporting (2) and (1), all kinds of people being actively engaged in reading, study, discussion, and learning about PCT.
Supporting all of the above, Discourse as a platform for finding agreements and working through disagreements in a civil way.
HB : I can’t see one option. Can we agree that also PCT and Powers name should be deeply burried into history of Cybernetics and Psychology. That was primary reason why I came back to Discourse. If you agree that IAPCT should do also about that then we just have to make plan of activity for promoting PCT and Bill Powers. I have a plan.
BN : If you were to ‘steal’ some idea from me and make good use of it, that would be great. (Just don’t say its mine if you change it.)
HB : Your proposal is not in accordance to Law of authors rights. I think that president of IAPCT should respect all Laws.
So I have better proposal which is not in conflict with Law of authors rights. Let us say that we become “friends” because it seems that we are quite similary interested in finding the truth about how organims function and of course nervous system. Usually learning process goes in both way. So we could do something like these :
- If I’ll write to any public something that contain your ideas I could say that Bruce Nevin make some deep insights and he came to some interesting conclussions…etc
- If you’ll write to any public you could maybe write something like : Boris Hartman presented interesting ideas supported by Wiener, Powers etc, and physiological findings etc.
What do you say about my proposal?