From Greg Williams (930414)
Rick Marken (930413.1400)
Gary Cziko sent this to me (and some others) in a private post
dated (930412.195618Z)
I predict that Greg is contolling for not having his controlled variables
uncovered. He will respond to my GOTCHA! with an attempt to show that I
didn't "gotcha" him at all.
and now Greg Williams (930413) says in reply to Gary's GOTCHA!:
My take on my motivation which you've been trying to predict was to do what
I thought would influence you to write "GOTCHA!" (which you did). I chose my
actions to influence you thusly on the basis of a crude statistical
analysis of your previous replies to my posts, coupled with some guesses
on how your environment has conditioned you. :>> Gotcha, recursively!
Sounds to me like this confirms Gary's prediction.
I won't quibble about whether my actions actually confirm Gary's
prediction, even though some might argue that it isn't a cut-and-dried
matter. I will accept that Gary correctly predicted that I attempted
to show that he didn't "gotcha" me at all. Congratulations, Gary! Now,
do you claim that you made this prediction on the basis of applying
The Test alone, on the basis of other techniques, or a combination? If
the basis was a convincing application of The Test, then I will of
course scrap my purely subjective notion that I was (am) not trying to
keep my controlled variables hidden and admit that I must be wrong
about that notion. Nevertheless, isn't it possible that you made a
correct prediction of my actions based on an incorrect interpretation
of the outcome of your application of The Test? Perhaps we can check
on that. Did you make any other predictions about what I would do,
based on my postulated controlled variable?
In his public post to the net today, Gary Cziko (930413.1913 GMT)
says:
I think the test CAN
work quite well at the higher levels and that we can even apply it to
ourselves (perhaps involving others to help us) when we are not sure what
we are controlling.
Last night, as I was agreeing with this statement, I forgot to ask
Gary about the basis for his confidence in The Test, so I'll ask now.
Gary, do you have a generative-model basis for the "quite well" claim,
or is the claim based on empiricism (perhaps even formalized to a
degree with statistics)? That is, do you think there is a PCT basis
for predicting when The Test will "work quite well" and when it
won't, or must you base such predictions solely on previous
observations without an underlying model to explain it? (I don't mean
to deny the possibility of a basis depending on both theory and
empiricism.)
Yes, indeed. It's not always easy to describe them verbally or
quantitatively, but we can certainly experience them (hey, they're
perceptions, right?).
Rick, do you believe that all (or practically all) perceptual signals
involved in control loops are accessible (perhaps with practice or
other special procedures) to awareness? What is the evidence? And if
all (or practically all) are capable of being experienced, what is the
evidence of the probable veracity (or correct reflection of the actual
pereceptual signals) of (some of? certain of?) those experiences? Is
the evidence theoretical, empirical, or a combination?
As ever,
Greg