I Apologize

From [Marc Abrams (2004.11.29.1023)

It has all come together today and I finally understand what has been going on.

I might be slow but I’m not stupid :slight_smile:

I remember a while ago in discussing some disagreements I had with Bill about the hierarchy and Bill responded to the effect, and I’m paraphrasing here; " What the hell do you think PCT is if not the hierarchy?" I then went about and explained that I thought the central idea was the control of the input not the output, and that the structure was of secondary importance.

He did not respond and that was the beginning of the end of our relationship. I was dumbfounded, and today I no longer am.

Bill recommended one of Pribram’s books and said it was a major influence on his work. Now I think I know why. Karl Pribram was fully aware that homeostatic systems controlled or regulated their stimuli, or input. Bill Powers did not come up with that concept. What Bill came up with is the hierarchy. He put number of ideas together, like Richardson talked about to make ‘PCT.’ Bill is not responsible for any one aspect of the model.

What is unique to PCT is the organization and structure of the hierarchy and the construction and maintenance of both perceptions and reference levels? I happen to disagree with him on both counts.

In my ignorance I have been essentially trashing what Bill viewed as his life’s work and from my current position I can’t say I blame him. For that I apologize. If I knew I was ‘competing’ with his ideas I would have shut up a long time ago.

I got the answer to my question. I wish Bill would have given it to me a long time ago, but I guess he tried when he tried to belittle my efforts and then refused to talk with me. I’m not big on nuance. A very simple private note would have sufficed.

I couldn’t understand why Bill was willing to put up with the nonsense he was getting from both Williams and Gregory, yet stayed firm against me.

I know why now

I did not, nor do I, wish Bill any harm. I will keep my thoughts to myself in the future on CSGnet.

Silence is deadly Bill.

Marc

From [Hank Folson (2004.11.29.0900)]
Marc Abrams (2004.11.29.1023)

Karl Pribram was fully aware that homeostatic systems controlled or regulated their _stimuli_, or input. Bill Powers did not come up with that concept. What Bill came up with is the hierarchy. He put number of ideas together, like Richardson talked about to make 'PCT.' Bill is not responsible for any one aspect of the model.

Now I feel better about never enjoying Shakespeare: He was not responsible for even one letter of the alphabet. :slight_smile:

What Bill Powers will be remembered for is being the first to recognize that:

- All living things are composed entirely of control systems.
_ These control systems are arranged in a series and parallel arrangement of
  hierarchies.
- Powers took his basic control system hypothesis to the level of a
  scientific theory, by using "hard science".
- He has proposed a hypothesis about how the first basic life forms occurred,
  and the path from there to today's life forms.

....I did not, nor do I, wish Bill any harm.

If that is so, you will not perceive this content as a Disturbance to be resisted.

Sincerely,
Hank Folson

[From Rick Marken (2004.11.29.1040)]

Marc Abrams (2004.11.29.1023)

Bill recommended one of Pribram's books and said it was a major influence on
his work.

You must mean Plans and the Structure of Behavior by Miller, Galanter and
Pribrum.

Karl Pribram was fully aware that homeostatic systems controlled or regulated
their _stimuli_, or input.

If Pribrum was aware of this he certainly didn't mention it. I know of no
one but Bill Powers who has clearly articulated the fact that control
systems are organized around the control of input (not stimuli; Bill shows
that the variables called "stimuli" are actually disturbances to controlled
inputs). And certainly no one but Bill Powers clearly articulated the
implications of this fact regarding how we should go about trying to
understand control in living systems. Only Bill Powers described The Test as
the only appropriate way to study the behavior of living control systems.
Neither Pribrum (nor anyone else) came up with the concept of the Test, nor
did he even write anything that indicated that he understood the concept of
the Test or even the concept of a controlled input variable.

Bill Powers did not come up with that concept.

Bill Powers is the only one who came up with the concept of control of
perception, the only one to articulate it clearly and the only one to
explain it's implications. If you can find anything in Pribrum or anyone
else's work that gives a clear explanation of control of input and how to
test to determine what inputs are under control I would love to see it.

What Bill came up with is the hierarchy.

He came up with a particular hierarchical architecture build on the concept
of control of different types of perceptions. I don't believe Bill's was
anything like the first hierarchical model of behavior, but his was
certainly the first model based on control of a hierarchy of perceptual
variables.

In my ignorance I have been essentially trashing what Bill viewed as his
life's work and from my current position I can't say I blame him.

I think what you should be apologizing for is simply misrepresenting PCT.
You keep saying things about PCT that are simply not true (like that it
can't explain emotion or cognitive behavior or imagination or value or
expectation or whatever) or you keep implying (without presenting any
evidence) that PCT does a poorer job at explaining these things than other
theories.

For that I apologize. If I knew I was 'competing' with his ideas I would have
shut up a long time ago.

We welcome competing ideas. You have presented no competing ideas. You have
simply been misrepresenting the idea of PCT by saying it can't handle this
or that. You are apologizing for something (presenting a competing idea)
for which you would not have to apologize (indeed, for which you would be
praised) if you had actually done it.

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.