[From Bruce Abbott (950610.2020 EST)]
Bill Powers (950609.0910 MDT)] --
Bruce Abbott (950608.1930 EST)
I am claiming that current reinforcement [theory] provides a
consistent and generally compelling framework for understanding
behavior (which is why it has so many adherents) and is capable of
handling the sort of data Bill P. asserts it cannot (the ratio
data).Compelling, yes, consistent within a narrow set of observations,
perhaps, but consistent with all we know, no.
Note that in the above quote I have made the narrowest of claims for
reinforcement theory: that it can handle the ratio data. I don't see where
I claimed that it was "consistent with all we know." Please point out that
part so I can correct it.
I need to understand how the PCT model of the universe accounts for
the apparent motions of the planets, even though those motions are
only a side-effect of not being at the center of the universe.
Interesting point. The PCT model says that the only universe we know is
the one we perceive from our own point of view, and that this universe,
while probably related to a real universe, is not necessarily a literal
representation of the real one.
. . .
If we believe that the model gives a more correct picture than our
observations, we see that while the observations are consistent with the
model, certain of them are illusions -- the apparent yearly reversal of
movement of the outer planets, for example, is not real. The apparent
change of shape of the other planets, as well as our own Moon, is not
real. So we begin to understand that the world we perceive and control
may be quite different from the world that exists.
Amen. Dag, here's another one for your wall (seriously!).
Glad you brought it up, although I may have taken the argument in a
different direction from what you had in mind.
Well, it's really a different argument entirely. I don't mind your using
the example for a different purpose so long as my argument does not get lost
in the process. I didn't see any response to it: did I miss the reply?
Does anyone remember what the argument was?
Regards,
Bruce