Misquoting

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.06.22 22:39 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2004.06.22.1530) --

Bruce Nevin (2004.06.22 16:40 EDT)--

> I think Bill Williams is pressing somewhat teasingly on the distinction
> between other people and perceptions of those other people. How can there
> be any such distinction if all there is is perception?

What do you think, Bruce? Can there can be such a distinction if it's all
perception?

I think that we demonstrate the actual, real existence of other people just
as surely as we identify controlled variables and the values at which they
are controlled, and by pretty much the same means. People become aware of
others' controlled variables all the time, and even test for them, though
they don't call it that. Naturally, all I know of any of that is limited to
perceptions that I can control. That does not make it invalid knowledge.
Furthermore, it is through interdependent interactions with other people
and with variables that we co-control with them that from earliest infancy
we have learned to perceive many of the perceptions that matter a great
deal to us, and to control those perceptions. In those interactions are
many feedback loops, positive as well as negative. (We have seen many
positive feedback loops in runaway on CSGNet.)

So you tell me, Rick. Are controlled variables real, or are they only the
observer's perceptions? When you've identified a CV, and tested it
exhaustively, eliminating every other hypothesis you can imagine, and built
a simulation that by controlling that CV replicates the observed behavior
with 99.996% accuracy, have you identified the perception that the observed
organism is really controlling, or is the CV only your perception? And does
the organism that is controlling that perception really exist? Does the
evidence that it is controlling the CV demonstrate its existence
independent of you more strongly than merely observing it sitting there can
demonstrate its existence independent of you?

Personally, I think a lot of "antisocial" behavior such as vandalism and
bullying is a proof to oneself of one's own existence. "Made you look!"
That's the other side of the mirror.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 03:34 PM 6/22/2004 -0700, Richard Marken wrote:

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.22.2050)]

Bruce Nevin (2004.06.22 22:39 EDT)--

Rick Marken (2004.06.22.1530) --

What do you think, Bruce? Can there can be such a distinction if
it's all
perception?

I think that we demonstrate the actual, real existence of other people
just
as surely as we identify controlled variables and the values at which
they
are controlled, and by pretty much the same means.

I agree. I think the fact that there are real constraints on the way we
can control our perceptions -- of people or of anything else -- is
evidence of a reality beyond our perceptions.

So you tell me, Rick. Are controlled variables real, or are they only
the
observer's perceptions?

Controlled variables are real in the sense that they are real
perceptions that exist in the brain of the controller and of the
observer. So I don't think it's a question of whether controlled
variables are real or perceptions. Controlled variables, like all
perceptions, are real perceptions. A more interesting question is
whether controlled variables (or any perceptions) correspond to
physical variables that exist in a reality beyond our perception. My
answer to this question would be "no". I think controlled variables
are _functions_ of physical variables that make up the reality beyond
our perceptions, but those functions exist only as perceptions in the
brain of an organism that can compute such perceptions. For example,
the taste of a milkshake, which is often a controlled perception for
me, exists only in my brain, which can perceive that taste as a
function of the physical (chemical) variables that are actually out
there.

When you've identified a CV, and tested it
exhaustively, eliminating every other hypothesis you can imagine, and
built
a simulation that by controlling that CV replicates the observed
behavior
with 99.996% accuracy, have you identified the perception that the
observed
organism is really controlling, or is the CV only your perception?

I'd say that it's always only my perception. It's a perception that may
correspond very closely to the perception controlled by the subject, as
in the case of tracking, where you can see almost exactly (except for
parallax) the perception (position of the cursor) controlled by the
subject. Or its a perception that is merely an analog of the perception
controlled by the subject, as in the case of the high frequency sound
reflection controlled by bats; we can't perceive the same way as the
bat perceives but we can perceive a visual or auditory analog of the
controlled echo.

And does
the organism that is controlling that perception really exist?

I think there is no question that the organism really exists as a
perception in the observer (and as a self perception in itself). I
believe that the organism also really exists as physical variables of
which the observer's perceptions of the organism (and the organism's
perceptions of itself) are a function.

Does the
evidence that it is controlling the CV demonstrate its existence
independent of you more strongly than merely observing it sitting
there can
demonstrate its existence independent of you?

No. I think that's completely irrelevant. The independent existence of
an organism is demonstrated in the same way as the independent
existence of anything; by the existence of reliable constraints on how
one can influence the state of one's own perceptions of that organism
or of anything else.

Regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2004.06.22.2220 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2004.06.22 22:39 EDT)--

Back in the dim mists of time, Bob Clark and I worked out a sort of
taxonomy of reality. It proposed three types of reality:

1. Directly Perceived Reality. This is the reality that we cannot doubt,
because even doubting is part of it. If you think, "I doubt that there is a
reality," there can be no doubt that you experienced that thought. In PCT
terms, this is the world of perceptions and activities in the brain --
which thought is, of course, part of my own directly perceived reality. But
those terms belong to the next category.

2. Deduced Reality. This is a subset of Directly Perceived Reality. Deduced
reality includes propositions about reality, such as "There is excellent
evidence for existence of a reality independent of me." That statement is
part of directly perceived reality, but it is about another part of
directly perceived reality -- a body of evidence and reasoning. The
proposition "There is probably no reality other than my own experiences" is
also a member of deduced reality, if that proposition exists in your
experience. It, too is about something other than itself in directly
perceived reality, including a body of evidence and reasoning. Evidence and
reasoning themselves are activities we are aware of in directly perceived
reality. In Deduced Reality, it makes sense to speak of truth, proof,
logic, and other aspects of reasoning, because propositions may turn out to
be defensible or indefensible using the tools of reasoning. When we say,
truthfully,"I see a pink elephant flying by," this is part of directly
perceived reality that we cannot doubt. But when we say "There are no pink
elephants, therefore I must be imagining or hallucinating," that statement
is part of deduced reality. It does not change the experience of seeing the
pink elephant flying by; it changes what we think about that undeniable
experience. What we think about experience can be right or wrong, in terms
of what we consider right or wrong. But the experience itself can't be
right or wrong; it simply exists.

3. Real Reality. This is a subset of Deduced Reality. It consists of all
propositions about a world that exists independently of and outside of
directly experienced reality. Physics, for example, is about Real Reality.
So is sociology, however, for someone who proposes that social entities are
real and have independent existence outside our direct experiences.

That still seems to make sense to me, as part of my Deduced Reality.

Best,

Bill P.

···

Rick Marken (2004.06.22.1530) --
At 03:34 PM 6/22/2004 -0700, Richard Marken wrote:

Bruce Nevin (2004.06.22 16:40 EDT)--

> I think Bill Williams is pressing somewhat teasingly on the distinction
> between other people and perceptions of those other people. How can there
> be any such distinction if all there is is perception?

What do you think, Bruce? Can there can be such a distinction if it's all
perception?

I think that we demonstrate the actual, real existence of other people just
as surely as we identify controlled variables and the values at which they
are controlled, and by pretty much the same means. People become aware of
others' controlled variables all the time, and even test for them, though
they don't call it that. Naturally, all I know of any of that is limited to
perceptions that I can control. That does not make it invalid knowledge.
Furthermore, it is through interdependent interactions with other people
and with variables that we co-control with them that from earliest infancy
we have learned to perceive many of the perceptions that matter a great
deal to us, and to control those perceptions. In those interactions are
many feedback loops, positive as well as negative. (We have seen many
positive feedback loops in runaway on CSGNet.)

So you tell me, Rick. Are controlled variables real, or are they only the
observer's perceptions? When you've identified a CV, and tested it
exhaustively, eliminating every other hypothesis you can imagine, and built
a simulation that by controlling that CV replicates the observed behavior
with 99.996% accuracy, have you identified the perception that the observed
organism is really controlling, or is the CV only your perception? And does
the organism that is controlling that perception really exist? Does the
evidence that it is controlling the CV demonstrate its existence
independent of you more strongly than merely observing it sitting there can
demonstrate its existence independent of you?

Personally, I think a lot of "antisocial" behavior such as vandalism and
bullying is a proof to oneself of one's own existence. "Made you look!"
That's the other side of the mirror.

        /Bruce Nevin

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 22 June 2004 1O:38 PM CST]

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.06.22 22:39 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2004.06.22.1530) --

Bruce Nevin (2004.06.22 16:40 EDT)--

> I think Bill Williams is pressing somewhat teasingly on the distinction
> between other people and perceptions of those other people. How can there
> be any such distinction if all there is is perception?

What do you think, Bruce? Can there can be such a distinction if it's all
perception?

So you tell me, Rick. Are controlled variables real,

I think Bruce Nevin is doing a much better job of "teasing" out the strategy

by which the PCT story is told than I have. I will attempt to augment
Bruce's remarks in terms of my perception of the CSGnet process. My
strategy, or among my strategies, has been a the tactic of "forcing an
error." Now the verb "forcing" can not be taken literally if one
understands control theory, however I trust that when re-interpreted
from a control theory standpoint the meaning should be clear. Mine is
a strategy that isn't pretty, but in difficult cirsumstances it may
sometimes be effective when other strategies are ineffective.

Bruce's question to Rick appears to identify how after saying that the only
thing that we know is what we percieve, a whole project is introduced
accompanied by a claims either implicit or explicit that these claims are
evidence of a really, real, reality. This reality is not merely a matter of
subjective perceptual experience. Rather it is a resort to science as a
category that breaks out of the "All I know is what I perceive." starting
point. The self that was initially confined to a jail in which there was no
means by which to come into contact with reality now has a pry-bar to tunnel
through the barrier of "All I know is what I percieve." to fresh air. However,
according to Bill Powers, if we are to breathe this fresh air, we must believe
in PCT and the escape story that Bill Powers tells.

However, an alternative story could be told using control theory in which the
story starts rather than in a prison, in which "All I know is what I can
perceive." but rather in a pub in which the members know something about each
other. And, at least some of the members of the pub regard the story told about
the fellow trapped in the prison of "All I can know is what I perceive." is a
bad dream or a nightmare. Some of them think that the explosions that resulted
when a mirror was held up to the guy trapped in the delusion that "All he could
know was what he perceived." are captured by the fable "Running Naked in the
Forest." And, there are genuine problems that result when attempts are made to
apply the PCT sophistology to interactions between human beings.

Rick Marken's recent assertion concerning Michelle-- not the assertion that she
is "an ignorant slut" but rather the assertion that Michelle's values are
inferior, and that her understanding of PCT is inferior. This time Rick forgot
to use the "if."

Bruce Nevin says,

Personally, I think a lot of "antisocial" behavior such as vandalism and
bullying is a proof to oneself of one's own existence. "Made you look!"
That's the other side of the mirror.

I think the Bruce may be at least partially correct in identifying the source
of unpleasant behavior. But why should this proving to oneself the reality of
one's existence be a problem? Decarte after all managed this. Or did he really?

On reflection it appears to me that there is a problem involved if one depends
upon one's own efforts for a proof of one's own existence. And, this may be
among the worst problems that originate with the PCT sophisology that "All you
can know is what you perceive." The reality of other persons is problematical
if the reality of other persons is considered to be merely one more perception
rather than actually another person _in reality_.

Perhaps Rick exhibits what you become when one, to some extent believes, that
"All that I am is what I perceive." The joke about the solipcist who was
puzzled that everyone wasn't a solipcist, isn't as funny if one considers the
behavior of people who chose their values and act upon a solipcistic premise.

Bill Williams

···

At 03:34 PM 6/22/2004 -0700, Richard Marken wrote:

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 22 June 2004 1:15 AM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.06.22.2220 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2004.06.22 22:39 EDT)--

3. Real Reality. This is a subset of Deduced Reality. It consists of all
propositions about a world that exists independently of and outside of
directly experienced reality. Physics, for example, is about Real Reality.
So is sociology, however, for someone who proposes that social entities are
real and have independent existence outside our direct experiences.

What Bill Powers neglects is the possiblity of a sociology, or a linguistics
or an economics that is real without violating a conception of behavior from
the standpoint of a control theory analysis. The limitation of Bill Powers
treatment of social theory in one sentence, and a dismissive sentence at that,
provides an example of why when Bill Powers has become involved in efforts to
apply control theory in a cultural context the results have so often gone,
and are still going astray.

The division implied between "direct expeience" and "social entities" is a
division that precludes a reliable or productive approach to control theory
in a cultural context.

Bill Williams

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 22 June 2004 1:40 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.22.2050)]

Bruce Nevin (2004.06.22 22:39 EDT)--

Rick Marken (2004.06.22.1530) --

What do you think, Bruce? Can there can be such a distinction if
it's all
perception?

Does the
evidence that it is controlling the CV demonstrate its existence
independent of you more strongly than merely observing it sitting
there can
demonstrate its existence independent of you?

No. I think that's completely irrelevant. The independent existence of
an organism is demonstrated in the same way as the independent
existence of anything; by the existence of reliable constraints on how
one can influence the state of one's own perceptions of that organism
or of anything else.

As it turns out there is a lot more involved here than "All that you can
know is what you perceive." The phrase "reliable constraints" upon
perception, however, is not readily applicable to social interaction,
and perhaps especially not to self-perception. When self-perception is
carried on in a context that is solipcistic the results appear to be
unstable-- the behavior that is described in terms of "subjectivity."

There has, I think, been enough accumulated experience to arrive at a
conclusion that an individualist or subjectivist approach to problems
in social theory and practice is unworkable. There are no genuine
solipcists, and the captive of "All that I can know is what I can
percieve," is an I that is cultural. Not in any magical sense of a
creature of social entities but in a perfectly mundane sense of having
grown in interaction with a cultural context.

While Rick may perceive that the concerns about the place that has been
assigned to human culture in PCT is irrelevant, the erratic behavior
which has been a persistent feature of the CSGnet might be considered
to be an indication that something is wrong with the basic PCT
sophistology. The I is an I that potentially can encounter and learn
about the features of a physical and even a social reality. Attempts to
think about, let alone modify, the character of this social reality are
conceptually difficult. A one sentence dismissal of the problem isn't a
solution.

Bill Williams

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.23.1150)]

Bill Williams (22 June 2004 1O:38 PM CST) --

However, an alternative story could be told using control theory in which the
story starts rather than in a prison, in which "All I know is what I can
perceive." but rather in a pub in which the members know something about each
other.

What do they know about each other, other than their perceptions of each
other?

Rick Marken's recent assertion concerning Michelle-- not the assertion that
she is "an ignorant slut" but rather the assertion that Michelle's values are
inferior

I said that I was "not impressed by her values". That is, her values, as I
perceive them reflected in her posts, don't match my reference for such
values. That doesn't mean her values are inferior in an absolute sense. They
are inferior relative to my references for such values but I imagine (and
hope, for the sake of her self respect) that they are exactly right relative
to her own references for those values.

Regards

Rick

···

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

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.23.1200]

Bill Williams (22 June 2004 1:40 PM CST) --

There has, I think, been enough accumulated experience to arrive at a
conclusion that an individualist or subjectivist approach to problems
in social theory and practice is unworkable.

What, exactly, is the nature of the evidence that an individualist or
subjectivist approach to problems in social theory is unworkable. Tom
Bourbon was able to successfully account for social behavior (interactions
between 2 and more people) using a simple PCT model, which treated each
party to the interaction as an individual controlling his or her own
subjective experience. Was this something that the accumulated experience
showed to be unworkable? Because, if so, the accumulated experience has a
problem because Tom seems to have used an individualist/subjectivist
approach to a problem in social theory quite successfully.

While Rick may perceive that the concerns about the place that has been
assigned to human culture in PCT is irrelevant

I don't know that human culture has been assigned a "place" in PCT. But I
certainly think that human culture is relevant to understanding human
beings. I just don't think human culture is an entity independent of the
individuals that are seen as members of the culture.

Regards

Rick

···

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

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 23 June 2004 2:20 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.23.1150)]

Bill Williams (22 June 2004 1O:38 PM CST) --

However, an alternative story could be told using control theory in which the
story starts rather than in a prison, in which "All I know is what I can
perceive." but rather in a pub in which the members know something about each
other.

What do they know about each other, other than their perceptions of each
other?

Given that the people in the pub understand control theory they have been involved

in "testing" each others control variables. See Burce Nevin's recent posts that

consider this issue at length.

Rick Marken's recent assertion concerning Michelle-- not the assertion that
she is "an ignorant slut" but rather the assertion that Michelle's values are
inferior

I said that I was "not impressed by her values". That is, her values, as I
perceive them reflected in her posts, don't match my reference for such
values.

Why should they?

That doesn't mean her values are inferior in an absolute sense.

No, of course not.

They are inferior relative to my references for such values

This would have to be demonstrated with extensive references so that it

could appear in a peer reviewed journal.

but I imagine (and hope, for the sake of her self respect) that they are

exactly right relative to her own references for those values.

This sort of argumentation is a good demonstration of why you are infamous

on the CSGnet. I regard your conception of value theory as inferior in a

functional sense. That is your values are distructive rather than constructive.

Bill Williams

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 23 June 2004 2:30 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.23.1200]

Bill Williams (22 June 2004 1:40 PM CST) --

There has, I think, been enough accumulated experience to arrive at a
conclusion that an individualist or subjectivist approach to problems
in social theory and practice is unworkable.

What, exactly, is the nature of the evidence that an individualist or
subjectivist approach to problems in social theory is unworkable.

See Bruce Nevin's recent posts, and my discussion concerning the role of
agreement in linguistics and economics.

Tom
Bourbon was able to successfully account for social behavior (interactions
between 2 and more people) using a simple PCT model, which treated each
party to the interaction as an individual controlling his or her own
subjective experience.

You are leaving out the agreement upon which this interaction took place.
therefore, Bourbon's experiement and explaination were not merely a matter
of as you say of "subjective experience." Why don't you try and see if you
can clarify this with Tom Bourbon?

Was this something that the accumulated experience
showed to be unworkable? Because, if so, the accumulated experience has a
problem because Tom seems to have used an individualist/subjectivist
approach to a problem in social theory quite successfully.

Not at all.

While Rick may perceive that the concerns about the place that has been
assigned to human culture in PCT is irrelevant

I don't know that human culture has been assigned a "place" in PCT. Gee,

I wonder when the hardworking folk like Ed Ford, and other PCT heros will

get around to providing a place in PCT for a theory of culture.

But I certainly think that human culture is relevant to understanding human
beings. I just don't think human culture is an entity independent of the
individuals that are seen as members of the culture.

Ah, but you see there are no such things as "individuals."

Bill Williams

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.23.1240)]

Bill Williams (23 June 2004 2:20 PM CST)--

Bill Williams (22 June 2004 1O:38 PM CST) --

However, an alternative story could be told using control theory in which
the story starts rather than in a prison, in which "All I know is what I
can perceive." but rather in a pub in which the members know something
about each other.

What do they know about each other, other than their perceptions of each
other?

Given that the people in the pub understand control theory they have been
involved in "testing" each others control variables.

I presume you meant "controlled variables".

How do the pub members know about each others controlled variables other
than as perceptions?

Regards

Rick

···

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

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 23 June 2004 2:30 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.23.1200]

Bill Williams (22 June 2004 1:40 PM CST) --

There has, I think, been enough accumulated experience to arrive at a
conclusion that an individualist or subjectivist approach to problems
in social theory and practice is unworkable.

What, exactly, is the nature of the evidence that an individualist or
subjectivist approach to problems in social theory is unworkable.

See Bruce Nevin's recent posts, and my discussion concerning the role of

agreement in linguistics and economics.

Tom
Bourbon was able to successfully account for social behaviour (interactions
between 2 and more people) using a simple PCT model, which treated each
party to the interaction as an individual controlling his or her own
subjective experience.

You are leaving out the agreement upon which this interaction took place.

therefore, Bourbon's experiement and explanation were not merely a matter

of as you say of "subjective experience." Why don't you try and see if you

can clarify this with Tom Bourbon? Greg Williams has also had thoughts

about the underlying assumptions of PCT and the implicit role of covert

agreements in PCT experiments.

Was this something that the accumulated experience
showed to be unworkable? Because, if so, the accumulated experience has a
problem because Tom seems to have used an individualist/subjectivist
approach to a problem in social theory quite successfully.

Not at all.

While Rick may perceive that the concerns about the place that has been
assigned to human culture in PCT is irrelevant

I don't know that human culture has been assigned a "place" in PCT. Gee,

I wonder when the hardworking folk like Ed Ford, and other PCT heroes will

get around to providing a place in PCT for a theory of culture.

But I certainly think that human culture is relevant to understanding human
beings. I just don't think human culture is an entity independent of the
individuals that are seen as members of the culture.

Ah, but you see there are no such things as "individuals."

Bill Williams

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 23 June 2004 2:45 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.23.1240)]

What do they know about each other, other than their perceptions of each
other?

Given that the people in the pub understand control theory they have been

involved in "testing" each others controled variables.

Howdo the pub members know about each others controlled variables other
than as perceptions?

Explaining this to you is like explaining to a solipcist why everyone else
isn't a solipcist. But....

There are two stories that can be told. One is the cell block story in which
which people are locked away in the issolation of their individualistic
subjectivism. The other view, which I believe is a more congenial one is that
that the delusion of individualist subjectivism is only a bad dream, and that
life is a sort of pub where there are no individuals but people are talking
to each other (but not calling people ignorant sluts, playing good spirited
games, not slamming doors, and someof the time anyway, having a good time
together.

In the pub the PCT sophistology is regarded, by some of us anyway,as a misguided
effort to capture control theory for an ideology that regards the non-PCT
world with contempt. The non-PCT world has little difficulty percieving this
contempt and for the most part does not believe the story of the PCT sophistoloy
and refuses to play the PCT game.

Does this help?

Bill Williams

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.23.1340)]

Bill Williams (23 June 2004 2:45 PM CST) --

Rick Marken (2004.06.23.1240)]

How do the pub members know about each others controlled variables other
than as perceptions?

There are two stories that can be told. One is the cell block story in which
which people are locked away in the issolation of their individualistic
subjectivism. The other view, which I believe is a more congenial one is that
that the delusion of individualist subjectivism is only a bad dream...

Does this help?

Yes. It does indeed.

Your approach to understanding phenomena involves telling stories that are
convincing because they appeal to you rather than building models that are
convincing because they account for the phenomena being modeled.

I think we'd all be happier if you stayed in the pub with your mates rather
than barging in all the time (apparently intoxicated) and disrupting our
rather pleasant little prison cell.

Regards

Rick

···

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

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 23 June 2004 3:00 PM CST]

Returning to the crime scene, it occurred to me that, there is a historical episode, an extended episode, that answers Rick's question.

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.23.1200]

Bill Williams (22 June 2004 1:40 PM CST) --

There has, I think, been enough accumulated experience to >>arrive at a conclusion that an individualist or subjectivist >>approach to problems in social theory and practice is >>unworkable.

What, exactly, is the nature of the evidence that an individualist or
subjectivist approach to problems in social theory is unworkable.

As an economist the era that began with the Peace Treaty at the close of the first World War, the inter-war boom, the Great Crash, the Great Depression, and the second World War provide some instructive illustrations why an individualist/ subjectivist approach to economic theory and policy is unworkable. See John Maynard Keynes' _The Consequences of the Peace_ for an extended discussion of why an individualist approach to resolving the post world war one problems was going to create even more problems. The bankruptcy that followed the speculative excesses and the Great Crash for a time took the wind out of the sales for economic orthodoxy's subjective individualism. Then based upon the adoption of a Keynesian management of the allies economies during world war two the allies won the war. There are many people who regard the collapse of Germany into fascism was the result of the chaos created by the adoption of an individualist subjectivist policy. Neither the individualist subjectivism nor the fascist collectivism (the fascist or Nazi party I believe was originally a national socialist party) On the level of world history neither of these two polar conceptions of the nature of reality appeared to supply concepts that lead to dependable results.

As a historical matter the contemporary versions of individualist subjectivism gained ground late in the 19th century with an attempt to create a doctrine that would be capable of defeating Marxism. The earlier expression of this position had its most effective theoretical expression in the works of Jerry Bent ham.

The most prominent expression of this individualist subjectivist position in the 20th century has been orthodox economics and neo-classical economics. One of the prominent advocates of this position the economist Fred von Hayek is cited with approval by Bill Powers. Cited not for his work in economics but rather for Hayek's discussion of perception. Hayek in the early phase of World War two published two papers advocating that the war be run on a "free market" basis. The third paper in the sequence never appeared. Why it failed to appear is a matter of conjecture.

So, we have a history in which the alternation between an individualist subjectivism and a collectivist conception of reality have both generated calamities. The calamities such as the consequences of the world war one peace treaty, the excesses and failures of "free market" interwar capitalism, the rise of fascism, the failures of a Marxist inspired Communism have resulted in what I regard to be a warranted scepticism concerning what many people regard as the only two sophistological alternatives available. Bill Powers consistent with his approval of von Hayek's conception of perception considers this individualist subjectivist conception of reality plausible. He connects this conception of reality with control theory-- but I have never found his arguments plausible. The factual point that there has never been an individual appears to me to be conclusive. Bill Powers has described this claim as "extremely irritating" and I expect that he finds it irritating-- it knocks the underpinnings out from under individualism. No individuals-- no individualism, or at least no rational basis for individualism. I suppose it is required that I must also explicitly disallow such creatures as Durkhiem's collective, or the "super-organic."

The alternatives to these two versions of reality individualism and collectivism is to use control theory and construct a third conception of reality in terms of "community." This notion of community, contrary to both the individualist and the Durkheimian collectivist conceptions has an factual basis-- as a historical matter there have been human communities. In contrast there has never been an individual or a collective in the Durkheimian sense. This doesn't mean that many people have believed in and acted upon the ideas of individualism or collectivism-- these doctrines have been and still are real in the sense that they have consequences. I think they have consequences on the CSGnet, even though I believe that both are equally dysfunctional.

In the CSGnet connection the results of a close adherence to an individualist position may have been Bill Powers' inability to comprehend the Keynesian system. Even the most able orthodox economists eventually adopted the Keynesian formulation, which indicates to me that they were more of the nature of pragmatists and economists than doctrinaire individualists. When a Milton Friedman found it possible to adopt the Keynesian income/expenditure scheme, I would never expected that Bill Powers would be unable to see how the Keynesian theory was constructed. The main difference in regard to economic realities in the 20th century has been the divide created by the chaos, economically and then in terms of a second world war that resulted from the attempt to apply an individualist economic doctrine and then the shift to a Keynesian anti-individualist, and equally anti-collectivist policy. In regard to economic realities there is a world of difference between the results of the "free market" individualist neo-classical economics of the early 20th century and the Post-Keynesian economic world.

As I see it the entire sequence of events during the 2Oth century-- the first world war, the economic instability an collapse of the Great Crash, and then the Great Depression, followed by a Second World War, and then by something, at least in comparison, by the relative economic stability of the post WWII era can be understood in terms of the chaos which the doctrine of individualism generates. I would rather not discard the costly lesson that this experience can provide if we pay attention in a wider context to the implication of ideas such as individualism. (Not that I am in any way a collectivist.)

I am please to hear of Bill Powers' decision to abandon his efforts to create a PCT economics. If his argument that sending people to Mars wouldn't cost anything is an illustration of the conclusions that the application of PCT principles lead, then his efforts would be better expended in work that is less susceptible to ideological confusions.

Bill Williams

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.06.23 17:58 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2004.06.23.1340)--

Your approach to understanding phenomena involves telling stories that are
convincing because they appeal to you rather than building models that are
convincing because they account for the phenomena being modeled.

I think we'd all be happier if you stayed in the pub with your mates rather
than barging in all the time (apparently intoxicated) and disrupting our
rather pleasant little prison cell.

That's a clever story too. But it's not a question of building simulations
vs. telling stories, it's a question of what you are building simulations of.

In one version of this, individuals are born with a bunch of intrinsically
provided control structures and a few intrinsic variables which, if not
controlled within intrinsic limits, trigger reorganization.

In the other version, infants are born into a pre-existing matrix of
variables that others are controlling collaboratively with one another, and
they learn to participate in that collaborative control. Variables that are
collaboratively controlled and the people that control them collaboratively
constitute the social environment. With gradual changes in the people
involved (with births, deaths, and other arrivals and departures) and in
the variables that are controlled (with technological, cultural, and
natural environmental changes), this social environment existed before a
given infant was born and will continue to exist (barring some catastrophic
destruction of the community) after she dies.

In the first version, the solitary confinement prison cell in Abu Graib,
everything emerges from failure to control and consequent reorganization.

In the second version, human society, failure to control and consequent
reorganization certainly plays a role, but there are also collaborative
means for learning to perceive the relevant variables and to control them
successfully.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 01:38 PM 6/23/2004 -0700, Richard Marken wrote:

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 23 June 2004 4:45 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.23.1340)]

Bill Williams (23 June 2004 2:45 PM CST) --

Rick Marken (2004.06.23.1240)]

How do the pub members know about each others controlled variables other
than as perceptions?

There are two stories that can be told. One is the cell block story in which
which people are locked away in the issolation of their individualistic
subjectivism. The other view, which I believe is a more congenial one is that
that the delusion of individualist subjectivism is only a bad dream...

Does this help?

Yes. It does indeed.

Your approach to understanding phenomena involves telling stories that are
convincing because they appeal to you rather than building models that are
convincing because they account for the phenomena being modeled.

First according to PCT this is _only_ your relativist subjective perception.
According to Bill Powers in a passage I am sure he regrets expressing in public
your economic model is "giant leap in the wrong direction." So, you efforts
to "account for the phenomena rather than "convincing" created a state of
dismay that your efforts were being represented as being an expression of PCT.
As you know I have done some modeling. The results have been, it must be said,
controversial, however, I have actually used control theory in an industrial
setting. And, the control systems that I built and maintained told their own
story by having an effect in the really real reality.

I think we'd all be happier if you stayed in the pub with your mates rather
than barging in all the time (apparently intoxicated) and disrupting our
rather pleasant little prison cell.

Rick, you use the term _all_ in the above. You can think things that aren't
true if you wish, I observe that you do this frequently, but in the above
sentence you should change "all" to "some." Just a suggestion so that you
can more closely conform to the standard of a Peer reviewed publication.

As to my being "intoxicated." I have seen you in a state of intoxication.
I have been told that you are an alchololic. However, in my case before
you call people "ignorant sluts" or accuse them of committing sophistology
while intoxicated, you ought to get your facts straight. I don't have a
problem with alcohol-- you it is rumoured do.

And, finally, what "rather pleasant little prison cell." I know you have
a poor memory, but what was Bill Powers' threat to withdraw from CSG, and
CSGnet about. You remember this threat from the St. Louis CSG meeting?
This was before I as you say barged into the "rather pleasant" environment
in which people were behaving in, as Bill Powers described it in terms of
"shocking stupidity."

Whether I am "disrupting" or whether you are "disrupting" is according to
PCT sophistology purely a matter of perception. Right?

I think that I have made a contribution to the CSGnet by prompting people to
remove the Economics thread from the section "The Best of the Net."
Sometimes a removal can be constructive.

Bill Williams

[Bill_Williams1]

From[Bill Williams 23 June 2004 6:00 PM CST]

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.06.23 17:58 EDT)]

Reading Bruce Nevin's post it occurs to me that the story that Bruce tells is a
story that has to do with, borrowing from Bruce, Collaborative Control Theory.

In contrast to the individualist, but purely fictional story, told by the PCT
sophistology, the CCT theory tells a story that is based upon a really real
reality-- that is a human community. (Time out for a necessary disclaimer. A
human community is not a super-organic creature. But, neither is the human
community merely a statistical collection of _per impossible_ contra-factual
individuals.)

Perhaps one of the better indicators that CCT provides a better basis from
which to consider the application of control theory to human experience is
that the only way the story can be told, PCT's story included, with any
effectiveness is through the use of language. And, language is fundamentally
a process a community of control systems involved in which collaboration
manages to out compete conflict and competition.

However, it also should be realized that experiments such as the ones that
Tom Bourbon conducted on cooperation are properly a part of CCT rather than
a strictly individualist version of PCT. The tasks that Tom Bourbon
considered the coordination tasks, can not be conducted without collaboration.

As a fundamental principle it can be argued that, "Nothing that gets done
gets done, without collaboration." This should be obvious if it is kept in
mind that even the mythical icon _an individual_ is in fact the product of
an extended process of collaboration. (My exposition of the principles of
CCT is, of course, tentative and subject to correction by my collaborators.
This may be in contrast to PCT where some mistakes can not apparently be
discussed without one's being dismissed as garbage. But then there is no
collaboration in PCT.)

The acronym CCT could also stand for Civilized Control Theory. That is a
version of control theory that would make use of the achievements of
human civilization rather than ignoring understandings that have not been
generated someplace else that in the Abu Graib prison.

Bill Williams

[Marc_Abrams1]

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.23.2144)]

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.06.23 17:58 EDT)]

In the first version, the solitary confinement prison cell in Abu

Graib,

everything emerges from failure to control and consequent

reorganization.

In the second version, human society, failure to control and

consequent

reorganization certainly plays a role, but there are also

collaborative

means for learning to perceive the relevant variables and to control

them

successfully.

Do you consider these mutually exclusive? If so, why?

In either case, do you think these are the only alternatives?

Marc

Considering how often throughout history even intelligent people have
been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people who
are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something
different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.

Being smart is what keeps some people from being intelligent.

Thomas Sowell

Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the
difference.

Anon

I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get
elected

Anon