[From Rick Marken (950213.2200)]
John Staddon (950211) --
the legal concept of "responsibility" requires that behavior be
predictable, not the converse,
I thought the legal concept of responsibility required evidence that
the accused actually 1) caused the result 2) intended that the result
occur and 3) knew that the result was "wrong". In Staddon's causal
model of the accused, the only evidence that can be evaluated sensibly is
evidence that the accused actually caused the result. A causal system
has no intentions (it doesn't control) and it makes no sense to ask
whether such a system knew that a particular result was wrong; in a causal
system, results are just results.
It is interesting that in his reply, Staddon never addressed the substance
of the criticism of his Atlantic article. The main criticism was that the
causal model assumed in the article does not explain intentional (purposive)
behavior. Staddon doesn't even mention "purpose" in his reply. Could he be
purposefully avoiding something?
Martin Taylor (950213 14:10) --
Personally, I just gave up the goal of "trying to get Rick to see things
my (the right) way" and have settled for bringing truth and
understanding to the rest of the CSG world.
Don't give up on me, Martin! I might see the truth yet. Data works
quite well on me. Once you get the right kind of data you might get me
to understand some of the remarkable truths you have brought to the
CSG world, like the ever popular "There is information about the
disturbance in the perceptual signal" and the newer, but just as exciting
"There are alerting stimuli that cause people to shift their attention
to problem situations"
I know that these things must be true because you said they are true.
But I'm trying to act like a real scientist so if you could show me how
you know these things are true it would make me feel a lot more
comfortable when I go and tell these truths to Tom and Bill.
Bill Powers (950213.0845 MST) --
When the person [in a compensatory tracking task] succeeds in
controlling the remote variable quite accurately despite those
invisible disturbances, the message is not just that PCT predicted this
ability, but that NO OTHER THEORY IN WHICH SCIENTISTS
CURRENTLY BELIEVE CAN PREDICT OR EXPLAIN IT.
You know this. I know this. But scientists who believe in other
theories don't know this -- and they don't really WANT to know this.
Indeed, we have run into many scientists who believe in PCT and, at
the same time, other theories which CANNOT PREDICT OR EXPLAIN
the result you describe above. Your ideal scientist will see what
happens in the tracking task and kiss S-R, cognitive, information,
reinforcement, complex systems, etc theories goodby. But most real
scientists just tuck their cause-effect theories comfortably into their
existing structure of beliefs (which might include PCT) and carry on
as though nothing special happened at all.
You know why this happens; I know why this happens: scientists are a bunch
of perceptual control systems, just like the rest of us.I just like to
kvetch about it every couple of days;-)
By the way, Bill. The post on positive feedback was a work of art.
Thanks.
Marc S. Abrams (950213.2135) --
Apology accepted.
Now, why don't we talk about PCT. Maybe you could tell us what
initially attracted you to PCT and what you like about the theory
and what you understand the theory to be about.
Best
Rick