Misquoting

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.0750)]

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.

It's a question of (actually a choice between) building models and testing
their predictions against observation vs telling stories. That is, it's a
choice between Bill Powers' way -- the way of modeling and testing, ie.
science -- and Bill Williams' (and many others') way -- the way of verbal
blather, ie. philosophy. I'm on CSGNet because I chose Bill Powers' way
long ago -- 26 years ago, actually. I chose it because it works so well,
it's intellectually satisfying and, therefore, it's just plain fun. I now
find the verbal blather approach -- which I used though much of my college
and graduate career -- to be worthless and boring. I would rather see
CSGNet used to develop Bill Powers' way. But you get what you get on the
internet.

Regards

Rick

···

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

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

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.0900)]

Bill Williams (23 June 2004 4:45 PM CST)

>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.

As you know I have done some modeling.

Your model was a model of nothing at all except, perhaps, an unnecessarily
complex two dimensional plotting routine. Simply writing programs with
statements like

o = o + (s * (g*(r-p)-o))*dt

does not a model make.

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.

That's great. But you have demonstrated no understanding of how to implement
a model of behavior from a PCT perspective, either analytically or as a
computer program. There are many control engineers out there who can build
perfectly competent control devices who, nevertheless, do not understand how
to map a control organization onto the behavior of living systems. Your
approach to understanding behavior is completely verbal and not particularly
coherent at that. For example, your "story" explaining why organisms can
know the world in other ways than via their perception was not an
explanation at all. This is what you said: " The other view, which I
believe is a more congenial one is that the delusion of individualist
subjectivism is only a bad dream..." Saying that a model of perception is a
"bad dream" is not a convincing explanation of what is wrong with it.

>I think we'd all be happier if you stayed in the pub with your mates

Rick, you use the term _all_ in the above... but in the above sentence you
should change "all" to "some."

The "we" I was thinking of was those of use who like to do modeling and
research. That may be only Bill Powers and myself but I hope it includes
several others.

As to my being "intoxicated." I have seen you in a state of intoxication.
I have been told that you are an alchololic.

I don't know about "alcoholic" (sounds like a dormative principle to me).
But it's true that I sure liked to drink a lot.

I said that about you seeming to be intoxicated because your behavior on the
net reminds me of that of an abusive drunk who doesn't know when to quit.
All you seem to do is yell and scream about what bad people Bill Powers and
I are (me being the worst) and what a terrible theory PCT is. At least some
of your pub mates, who probably agree with you about me and about PCT, are a
bit more civil.

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

Wrong. According to PCT "disrupting" is a matter of perception _and_
references. "Disrupting" describes a discrepancy between what one wants
(reference) and what one sees (perception). My guess is that we all perceive
your behavior in nearly the same way. For example, everyone would probably
agree that you are constantly repeating the claim that my economic model was
a giant leap in the wrong direction. Those who see you as disrupting have a
different reference for the kind of behavior they would like to see on
CSGNet than those who don't see you as disrupting. The difference is in our
goals, Horatio, not necessarily in our perceptions.

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."

I think your singular contribution to PCT has been bringing the Giffen
effect to our attention. Other than that, I can't think of many positive
contributions at all that you have made to PCT or CSGNet. I think of a
positive contribution to PCT as some kind of modeling or research effort
that tests the PCT model of behavior. Since you have been on CSGNet you have
demonstrated that you don't know how to write a control model (thanks for
posting those programs), that you are hostile to data analysis (I think you
referred to my analysis of some economic data as "masturbating") and that
you are against the idea of developing a model of economics based on first
principles. As far as "The Best of CSGNet" I see that the file ECONOMIC.S
is still there, thank goodness.

Sometimes a removal can be constructive.

I agree. As in RTP I think it is a good idea to remove disruptive students
from the classroom. But unlike the RTP teacher I have no control over who
can and can't be in the CSGNet classroom. I could say "I see you have chosen
to leave" which, according to an earlier version of RTP, always led
disruptive kids to leave class voluntarily. Let's see if it works here.

Of course, you are more than welcome to stay in the class if you can
contribute something substantive in terms of modeling or data analysis.
Criticisms of the PCT model would also be most welcome as long as they were
cast in the form of models and/or data analysis. Verbal abuse (saying that a
model is a giant leap in the wrong direction or that a model is sophistical
and so on) is not useful criticism. What I am looking for is a detailed
description, for example, of exactly what is wrong with my economic model
and how can it be fixed. Saying that a model is "a giant leap in the wrong
direction" may be enough for you, but it's not enough for those of us on
CSGNet who want to pursue knowledge via Bill Powers' way.

Regards

Rick

···

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

From[Bill Williams 24 June 2004 10:50 AM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.0750)]

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 Rick's perception the real question is a matter of nodding one's head and
saying "Great post Bill [Powers] or building a collaborative community of
inquiry.

As Rick says,

I'm on CSGNet because I chose Bill Powers' way long ago -- 26
years ago, actually.

and,

I would rather see CSGNet used to develop Bill Powers' way.

Some of us already knew something about control theory before becoming acquainted with Bill Powers. I had maintained, designed and constructed industrial control systems (aircraft and agricultural sytems), and I assumed that CSG meant an organization devoted to control theory applications rather than whatever might happen to come into Bill Powers' head-- such as Bill Powers' dad's crack-pot economics, and the it isn't going to cost anything to send people to Mars thesis.

Rick goes on to say that,

... you get what you get on the internet.

I would say that given the a solipcistic and subjective make-up that often is a chracteristic of "Bill Powers'" way, (Such as Bill Powers' recent argument that entropy has nothing to do with control theory) that what the CSGnet has "gotten" has been has been a small contingent of people who can think for themselves and see that in some instances Bill Powers' way doesn't have anything at all to do with the genuine implications of control theory.

Rick says that,

It's a question of (actually a choice between) building models > and testing their predictions against observation vs telling stories.

Rick's claim is far too simplistic to be a plausible haracterization of the basis of the recent disputes on the CSGnet. I am one of the few CSGnet participants who has actually built, not models but functioning control systems. So, his description of me in terms of "verbal blather" is not convincing. Rick's sytle of argumentation might be described in terms of "devote falsification."

That is, it's a choice between Bill Powers' way -- the way of >modeling and testing, ie. science --

The PCT sophistology is not sceince. Whoever would think that this weird story is science?

Rick goes on to say,

Bill Williams' (and many others') way -- the way of verbal
blather, ie. philosophy.

Of course Rick description of me in terms of "verbal blather" ignores the mistakes which he has made when he thought that he understood control theory when he actually didn't. Such as the time he tried, based upon what he assures us was the very noblest of motives to improve the Giffen paper. Rick made that mistake as a result of his not understood the ethics of editing and publishing. He still evidently is lacks the moral and intellectual rsoures and so is unable to tell the truth.

Rick describes Bill Powers' way as,

intellectually satisfying and, therefore, it's just plain fun.

Bill Powers' must have been having fun with his argument that it wasn't going to cost anything to go to Mars? However, I wouldn't call that arguement intellectually satisfying, neither would I describe Bill Powers' resort to his dad's Leakages thesis all that intellectually satisfying.

Rick curiously describes his own, that is pre-Bill Powers period, in terms that he now applies to me.

I now find the verbal blather approach -- which I used >though much of my college and graduate career -- to be >worthless and boring.

I think now the argument has resulted in a crucial disclosure. When Rick says stuff that he thinks applys to me, what he is really doing is criticizing his own assessment of his pre-Powers self in terms of it being "worthless and boring." Thus what Rick ignores is that a decade before encountering Powers I chose to learn, not more "verbal blather" but rather how cybernetics actually worked by asquiring an oscliscope and some electronic instruments and seeing how this stuff actually works. That gave me the experience to see that writings such as Bertalanffy's reall were as Rick says "verbal blater."

Perhaps the difference between Rick and myself is having put forth the effort to acquire the knowledge required to build atually working control systems-- not just models-- and at the same time made a genuine effort to learn enough about philosophy, I can distinguish between "verbal blather" -- the "It isn't going to cost anything to go to Mars." and the genuine implications of a control theory applied to human behavior.

What Rick doesn't seem to realize is that while it may not be possible to tell if someone is lying, it is sometimes possible to tell when someone isn't telling the truth. When I was earning my living as a crendentialized "expert witness" I came to a relization as a result of watching people lie under oath, and then get hammered, that purgery wasn't a prudent policy. And, neither was telling lesser fibs of exageration. Best to stick to being candid and accurate.

But, CSGnet, well it is a place where honesty doesn't count for much. You might even say it is a hall of mirrors in which the lies bounce about endlessly.

Bill Williams

Rick

···

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

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

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.24.1550)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.0900)]

Wrong. According to PCT "disrupting" is a matter of perception _and_
references. "Disrupting" describes a discrepancy between what one

wants

(reference) and what one sees (perception).

What about what someone imagines? How do you know a 'perception' is
imagined or 'real'? What if you can't 'see' it, hear it, feel it, taste
it, or smell it? Does that mean it really doesn't exist?

How much of what you 'see' is actually 'out' there and how much is
already in your head?

How did Helen Keller 'perceive' the world? According to HPCT she
couldn't, because 'perceptions' are strictly a function of our sensory
modalities. Did she 'perceive' strictly according to her olfactory
senses?

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

From[Bill Williams 24 June 2004 12:50 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.0900)]

Bill Williams (23 June 2004 4:45 PM CST)

>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.

As you know I have done some modeling.

Your model was a model of nothing at all except, perhaps, an unnecessarily
complex two dimensional plotting routine. Simply writing programs with
statements like

o = o + (s * (g*(r-p)-o))*dt

does not a model make.

Perhaps rather than just asserting this in a one sentence you could provide a
manual that would explain just what is and is not a model from a "Bill Powers
way perspective.

I have over the years attempted to encourage Bill Powers to write up his
conception of modeling. In the past Bill Powers explained his not having
done so because he didn't feel sufficiently confident in his ability to
generate an adaquate explaination of control theory. I've been a bit
puzzled by this, and I have spent some time in search of such a manual.

In reply to my most recent repetition of this request Bill Powers explained
his not having published a seque to _B:CP_ as the result of his conception
of modeling being based as he said upon his "hunches." Now there is nothing
wrong with "hunches" especially when the quite often workout-- as they often
do for Bill Powers. However, in the absence of a text that we can consult
to determine what is and is not a model-- in Bill Powers' comprehension of
what is a model we are reduced to a reliance upon Bill Poewers' hunches.

As you know in commenting upon the Lattice program, Bill Powers first
pointed out to you that there was indeed a control loop in the program.
Then he seems to have changed his mind and now agrees with you that all
that is involvded is computation. Bill Powers' change of mind was not
accompanied by an explaination of why the change occured. This isn't the
way I thought science was supposed to be conducted, but then the PCT
silopcist sophistology is not science-- rather it is Bill Powers' way.
And, Bill Powers' definition of modeling is, at this point only specified
in terms of Bill Powers' hunches.

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.

That's great. But you have demonstrated no understanding of how to implement
a model of behavior from a PCT perspective,

As I pointed out recently, given the absence of a seque to _B:CP_ no one,
not even Bill Powers knows what a PCT perspective actually is. Bill Powers'
hunches seem to change based on which side of the bed he wokeup on and what
the incoming CSGnet traffic has to say.

You have consistently exhibited a misunderstanding of how to use english.
In this post you conceed that I have "demonstrated no understanding...."
when I don't think there should be any question that I made some contribution
to a control theory analysis of the Giffen paradox. Bill Powers, I will say,
has been more generous than accurate in describing our collaboration.

There are many control engineers out there who can build
perfectly competent control devices who, nevertheless, do not understand how
to map a control organization onto the behavior of living systems.

This may be true, however, your pretentious phrase "map a control organization
onto the behavior of a living system" is only another way of saying "Bill Powers'
hunches." And, these "hunches" change with fluctuations in Bill Powers' feelings.

Your approach to understanding behavior is completely verbal and not particularly
coherent at that.

Again, take note of your used of "completely." I suppose my understanding of the
behavior of student pilots behavior -- their pilot induced oscilations -- was
completely verbal? At least when their "behavior" went beyond certain limits
I understand that it was necceary to physically assume control of the aircraft
and end the student's PIO.

For example, your "story" explaining why organisms can
know the world in other ways than via their perception was not an
explanation at all.

Agan you are misusing the language. It may have been a poor, or mistaken explaination
but I don't see why it wasn't an explaination.

This is what you said: " The other view, which I believe is a more congenial
one is that the delusion of individualist subjectivism is only a bad dream..."
Saying that a model of perception is a "bad dream" is not a convincing
explanation of what is wrong with it.

I guess the question is convincing to whom. Keep in mind that probably half the
people on the CSGnet think that you really did eat at least half of Lanna Turner.
You have probably heard the rejoinder to "Your argument is not convincing." The
explaination that "I can give you an arugment, but you will have to provide your
own understanding?" You see you don't get to decide the outcome of an argument,
except in regard to your perception, there are other participants, if only as
observers-- there is something here of a rudimentary community.

>I think we'd all be happier if you stayed in the pub with your mates

Rick, you use the term _all_ in the above... but in the above sentence you
should change "all" to "some."

The "we" I was thinking of was those of use who like to do modeling and
research.

In the absence anything more than Bill Powers' statement that his conception
of modeling is based upon "hunches." the term modeling is as a practical
matter an undefined term.

That may be only Bill Powers and myself but I hope it includes
several others.

After 26 years there is only a "hope" that there are more than two of you?

As to my being "intoxicated." I have seen you in a state of intoxication.
I have been told that you are an alchololic.

I don't know about "alcoholic" (sounds like a dormative principle to me).
But it's true that I sure liked to drink a lot.

It seems to me that when you charge me with some defect, the solipcist that
you are, the most availible source for something to charge me with is a
trait that you are familiar with because you exhibit the trait. Thus I get
blamed for being Rick-- which let me tell you would be humiliating-- like
the time you undertook to rewrite the Giffen paper, if I took it to heart--
which I don't

I said that about you seeming to be intoxicated because your behavior on the
net reminds me of that of an abusive drunk who doesn't know when to quit.

But why should I quit just to endulge a couple of solipcists? You are a
cultural relatvist, it is all a matter of perception. Isn;t it. Or, is
there more to the story?

All you seem to do is yell and scream about what bad people Bill Powers and
I are (me being the worst) and what a terrible theory PCT is.

Well suppose I am right. There are a lot of people, besides myself, who think
that you are a psycopath. And, a lot of people are beginning to think that
Bill Powers has gone off the track. And, if you and Bill Powers don't appear
to have much respect for the truth, why not as you say "yell and scream."

At least some of your pub mates, who probably agree with you about me and
about PCT, are a bit more civil.

You may have heard of Mary Ellen Lease who at the turn of the century
encouraged the midwest farmers to "Raise more hell and less corn." In my
own way I have adopted some tactics to carry on a campagn of the CSGnet
against a confusion of science with Bill Powers' PCT sophistology. As you
have said the tactic has been effective. Why in the world would I want to
take your advice when in what seems to me to have been a candid moment you
admit that my tactics have worked? Does a boxer listen to and comply when
his oponate asks him to lower is left and expose his jaw? Have heard of the
good cop, bad cop teamwork?

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

Wrong. According to PCT "disrupting" is a matter of perception _and_
references.

So, it isn't really a matter of all "I can know is what I percieve." You see
this "All I can know is what I percieve." isn't a sufficient basis for a worth
while story.

"Disrupting" describes a discrepancy between what one wants
(reference) and what one sees (perception).

So when Bill Powers says one thing in public on the CSGnet and says quite a
different thing in private, who's doing the disrupting?

My guess is that we all perceive your behavior in nearly the same way.

You almost couldn't be wrong. I get fan mail.

For example, everyone would probably agree that you are constantly repeating
the claim that my economic model was a giant leap in the wrong direction.

Rick, have you been hitting the bottle again?

It was Bill Powers who described you program as a "giant leap in the wrong
direction."

After seeing the obvious mistakes in your (no I am not going to call it a
model-- I have standards you know.) I lost nearly all interest in examining
the program any further.

Those who see you as disrupting have a different reference for the kind
of behavior they would like to see on CSGNet than those who don't see you
as disrupting.

Yes. I notice that there are some people who don't see it as disrupting when
Bill Powers calls poor ole Ludwig von Mises an asshole. But they take offense
when I use similiar language. So, yes I would admit that different people
have a differnt reference for speech. If Bill Powers calls Ludwig an asshole
there must be good reason for it. So, I hold up a mirror and suddenly all
sorts of claims are bouncing about this person and that being assholes. And
eventually we get to "dog poop." You see what I do as disrupting, I see it
as getting into the CSGnet spirit. The funny part of it, again from my
perspective is that once the shit really hits the fan people start whining
about civlity. Like the guy who called Michelle, "an ignorant slut."

The difference is in our goals,

Yes, you want the CSGnet to run on a solipcistic basis and we wait upon
Bill Powers to show us the way using his "hunches" even if that way his
'hunches" today contradicts what he said yesterday. When Bill Powers was,
for some reason irritated by something you'd done my Lattice program had
a control loop in it. When he was irritated with me because he didn't
like me being, in his perception, unfair to you, he came up with a
contradictory opinion. But that is the nature of PCT sophisology.

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."

I think your singular contribution to PCT has been bringing the Giffen
effect to our attention. Other than that, I can't think of many positive
contributions at all that you have made to PCT or CSGNet.

Compared to whom? Why don't you create a score card of who has and who
hasn't made a contribution?

I think of a positive contribution to PCT as some kind of modeling or
research effort that tests the PCT model of behavior.

But, no one except Bill Powers knows what the Power Control Theory consists
of, and his perception of what it is chagnes from day to day as a result of
inter-personal political considerations.

Since you have been on CSGNet you have demonstrated that you don't know
how to write a control model (thanks for posting those programs),

Since you are not talking about PCT here, but rather control, you are
wrong. I can write control models, whether or not I can write PCT models
depends upon Bill Powers' "hunches."

that you are hostile to data analysis (I think you
referred to my analysis of some economic data as "masturbating")

Strangly enough it was Kenny that introduced the description of your's and
Bill Powers' approach to data analysis as "masturbation." Maybe Kenny can
confirm this for us.

and that you are against the idea of developing a model of economics
based on first principles.

This is a very pecular idea. Unless you define PCT as the only availible
"first principles." I am all in favor of reconstructing economics from
first principles-- the first principles being control theory rather than
PCT. What a strange accusation.

As far as "The Best of CSGNet" I see that the file ECONOMIC.S
is still there, thank goodness.

Thank goodness indeed. I hope you mean the thread where Bill Powers based upon
his dad's reading of Keynes provides a comically misunderstood description of
Keynes.

Sometimes a removal can be constructive.

I agree. As in RTP I think it is a good idea to remove disruptive students
from the classroom. But unlike the RTP teacher I have no control over who
can and can't be in the CSGNet classroom. I could say "I see you have chosen
to leave" which, according to an earlier version of RTP, always led
disruptive kids to leave class voluntarily. Let's see if it works here.

Sure, bye Rick. If you leave then it is working.

You see in my perception you are the one creating the disruption. You and Bill
Powers are presenting this PCT sophistology as if it were a science. So, you
are in effect disrupting the pursuit of science by presenting an ideology as
if it were a science.

Of course, you are more than welcome to stay in the class if you can
contribute something substantive in terms of modeling or data analysis.

Are you asking in terms of PCT sophistology, or in terms of control theory?

Criticisms of the PCT model would also be most welcome as long as they were
cast in the form of models and/or data analysis.

Well the PCT model is a sophistology. It doesn't have anything neccesarily to
do with control theory. So, I don't see how a model is going to defeat an
ideology. This is sort of like confusing a game of chess with a really real
reality of war.

Verbal abuse (saying that a model is a giant leap in the wrong direction

This is great Rick, as in the case of the masturbation which was Kenny's
description, the "giant leap in the wrong direction" was a phrase coined by
Bill Powers. To use another of Bill Powers' phrases, could I say it is a
"shocking stupidity" to blame me for what Kenny and Bill Powers said about
you?

or that a model is sophistical and so on) is not useful criticism.

How about my fable "Running Naked in the Forest?" The question, however,
might be framed in terms of "useful" to whom. Ordinarily the subject of
criticism is not the person one would ask how to conduct the criticism.
Just like the results don't turn out that well when a painter listens to
a person's instructions as to how to paint a likeness. What the subject of
criticism may want rather than criticism is fawning. Now maybe I could learn
to say "Great post Bill." but things have reached a state that if I really
did say "Great Post Bill." he might think I was being sarcastic and bite me
for being condecending.

What I am looking for is a detailed description, for example, of exactly
what is wrong with my economic model and how can it be fixed.

You might taking to heart whatever it was that Bill Powers said. I think
Bill may have provided all the criticism and suggestions required-- including
the comment that the model was "a giant leap in the wrong direction."

Saying that a model is "a giant leap in the wrong direction" may be enough

for you,

Actually you really are confused, I never said that your program (I am not
going to call it a model) was "a giant leap in the wrong direction" it was
Bill Powers who said that your model (Bill Powers can call it a PCT model
if he wants to) was "a giant leap in the wrong direction." I've never been
at all interested in your program, certainly not enough to make such severe,
and definitive judgment as its being "a giant leap in the wrong direction."
I did think that it was a very innovative proceedure to use a control loop
to make the two sides of an identity come into equation with each other.

but it's not enough for those of us on CSGNet who want to pursue knowledge
via Bill Powers' way.

Maybe I should start practicing nodding my head? Or, maybe as an approach to
truth in advertising (novel idea) the net ought to be labelled "Bill Powers'
way" rather than Control Study Group.

No wonder you have been cross with me. You've been blaming me for what Kenny
said, that you were masturbating with the data, and then also blaming me for
saying that your economic program (no I am still not going to call it a model)
was "a giant leap in the wrong direction." when it was really Bill Powers who
said that your economic model (Bill Powers can call it anything he likes)
including "a giant leap in the wrong direction." But, I would never, and
never have said, that your program is a giant leap in the wrong direction.
Now, I am sorry if I took what Bill Powers said, that your model was "a
giant leap in the wrong direction out of context. But, the only context that
I could see in his criticism of you program was a critical context, so maybe
Bill Powers can explain why my quoting him as saying that your model was "a
giant leap in the wrong direction." But, you will have to ask Bill Powers
to explain why my quoting him as saying that your program was "a giant leap
in the wrong direction." was taking what he said out of context. As you know
Bill Powers has found that credentialized experts in economics can be
difficult to deal with.

And, if you are willing to take down the spam blocker you placed on Kenny
then you could take up with him why he described your data analysis in terms
of masturbating with the data.

You see, despite this thread having started out with Bill Powers attempting
to create an atnosphere more like that of a peer reviewed journal, you are
misquoting me as having said something that I never said. That, of course,
is itsel a misquotion. What you should have taken me to task for is quoting
what Kenny and Bill Powers said.

I hope that eventually You will get this business concering the proper use of
quotations straight. Then when Bill Powers says that your (no I am not going
to call it a model) program is "a giant leap in the wrong direction." you can
say "Great post Bill!" rather than blamining me.

Bill Williams

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.1400)]

Marc Abrams (2004.06.24.1550)--

Rick Marken (2004.06.24.0900)]

Wrong. According to PCT "disrupting" is a matter of perception _and_
references. "Disrupting" describes a discrepancy between what one
wants (reference) and what one sees (perception).

What about what someone imagines?

Same thing applies. If you imagine a perception in a state that is different
from your reference for the state of that perception, you experience a
discrepancy. Basic PCT. The imagined perception seems disruptive, not
because of anything about the perception per se but, rather because it
differs from the reference. For example, I don't care for Lima beans; my
reference for the consumption of Lima beans is zero. So when I think about
(imagine) eating Lima beans I find that imagined perception unpleasant. My
son finds the same imagined perception quite pleasant because, for reasons
that are beyond my understanding, he has a reference for something more than
zero amount of Lima beans.

How do you know a 'perception' is imagined or 'real'?

I think it's because control of real perceptions is constrained by physical
law. I can imagine myself jumping up and flying but I can't actually produce
that perception for myself in reality.

What if you can't 'see' it, hear it, feel it, taste
it, or smell it? Does that mean it really doesn't exist?

No. We can't perceive radio waves but we assume (and act as though) they
exist.

How much of what you 'see' is actually 'out' there and how much is
already in your head?

Hard to tell. My guess is that 90% of our perceptual experience is based on
external variables (that are "out there") and that the rest is filled in by
imagination. So far, I know of no data that requires an explanation in terms
of an imagination component to perception. My estimate of a 10% imagination
component to perception is based on nothing more than intuition and some
experiences where I thought I saw things out of the corner of my eye (while
driving, for example) that were not actually there.

How did Helen Keller 'perceive' the world?

Via the sensory systems that were available to her: taste, feel, etc.

According to HPCT she couldn't, because 'perceptions' are strictly
a function of our sensory modalities. Did she 'perceive' strictly
according to her olfactory senses?

She could only perceive in terms of her available sensory capabilities. I
think she lost her sight and hearing when she was 3 or 4 or so, so she may
have had enough experience with these modalities to have been able to have
imagined in those terms, to some extent. So she might have already known
what water looked like when she finally learned the hand sign (which she
perceived as a felt configuration) for water -- also experienced at that
point only as a feeling. She might have been able to imagine, to some
extent, what the water looked like, having seen it before losing her sight.
I've never read Helen Keller's autobiography but I think that would explain
an lot about how she experienced the world.

Regards

Rick

···

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

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.1520)]

Bill Williams (24 June 2004 12:50 PM CST)

You may have heard of Mary Ellen Lease who at the turn of the
century encouraged the midwest farmers to "Raise more hell
and less corn." In my own way I have adopted some tactics
to carry on a campagn of the CSGnet against a confusion of
science with Bill Powers' PCT sophistology.

Thanks for being clear about what you are up to and for demonstrating that
when it comes to confusion about science you have no peer. Scientific
disagreements are not handled by campaigns of hell raising. When you
disagree with a scientific proposal, you campaign against it by careful
observation, model building and testing. If one is not interested in or
capable of doing any these things then, of course, the only way to campaign
against a scientific proposal is to raise hell.

It's too bad that PCT has attracted people like you and your fans. But I
guess it's just one more of the surprising negative side effects of getting
involved with an idea that is way ahead of its time.

Have fun.

RSM

···

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

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.24.1823)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.1400)]

> How do you know a 'perception' is imagined or 'real'?

I think it's because control of real perceptions is constrained by
physical law.

This answer doesn't make any sense Rick. How do our perceptions 'know'
what laws are out there? And how does a control system 'know' it's
imagined? And does it care?

Do you have a model and some data on this?

Since it accounts for as you say about 10% of the perceptual activity (I
think it's a great deal more but why quibble :-)) I would think it would
be an important element in the model.

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

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.1610)]

Marc Abrams (2004.06.24.1823)]

Rick Marken (2004.06.24.1400)

How do you know a 'perception' is imagined or 'real'?

I think it's because control of real perceptions is constrained by
physical law.

This answer doesn't make any sense Rick.

Oh, Marc. This is so tiresome.

In a normal control loop, the effect of a controller on the controlled
variable is determined largely by the nature of the feedback function
connecting between output and input. This feedback function is the physical
law that constrains the ways in which you can influence the controlled
variable. In the case of flying, this feedback function consists largely of
gravitational acceleration of my mass towards the center of the earth. When
you imagine, there is no feedback function connecting you to the imagined
controlled perception. When you imagine yourself flying, there is no
gravitational constraint that keeps you from taking off.

Regards

Rick

···

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

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.24.1918)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.1610)]

Oh, Marc. This is so tiresome.

Really?

Your account is very nice for 'flying', but it doesn't sit as well when
you're a schizophrenic and something is whispering in your ear and you
can't tell whether it's real or not. I've said this before in this
forum. My brother-in-law is schizophrenic and in discussions with him,
he has told me that the voices he hears at times are as real as our
conversations. Fortunately those voices 'only' cause him a great deal of
anxiety and do not lead to any destructive 'error' correction besides
the internal stress.

What 'physical laws' explain this?

You also failed to answer my question;

"Do you have a model and some data on this?

Since it accounts for as you say about 10% of the perceptual activity (I
think it's a great deal more than that but why quibble :-)) I would
think it would be an important element in the model."

You also say;

This feedback function is the
physical law that constrains the ways in which you can influence the

> controlled variable. In the case of flying, this feedback function
> consists largely of gravitational acceleration of my mass towards the
> center of the earth.

What 'constraints' would stop my brother-in-law from harming himself or
others if the voices directed him to do so and he felt he was
'protecting' someone or something he loved, even though the whole story
was right out of Alice in Wonderland.

Btw, this of course is an extreme example, just as yours was, but my
thrust was that for most of us, who at various times, have different
proportions of 'reality' and 'imagination' mixed together to provide us
with our view of the world. The HPCT model does not currently provide a
way to model this situation.

This is one reason why mental illness is so hideous. There is nothing
that 'seems' to be 'wrong', yet people cannot function properly. Mental
illness can be more debilitating than most physical illnesses that have
walk arounds. That is, if you can't use one hand, you can, in most cases
use the other, whereas if your fighting 'ghosts' all the time and you
can't tell the difference between what is real and what isn't, your
world is turned upside down.

You also maintain that given a specific environment two people will
'perceive' the same things. Here is a counter-example.

You and I are standing in the woods in northern NJ. _WE_ hear a growl
and I imagine there is a tiger nearby. You imagine I'm nuts, because
there are no tigers in this part of the world. But I know what a tiger
sounds like and I run like hell and I suggest you do the same. You bend
over laughing as the tiger who escaped from a nearby wildlife park bites
your head off. Why didn't we perceive the same thing? And how would you
model this situation in HPCT?

Was one perception 'real' and the other 'imagined'? Both 'imagined'?
Both 'real'? I say they were both real.

Still tiresome? Sorry if you feel that way.

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

From[Bill Williams 25 June 2004 1:25 AM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.1520)]

Bill Williams (24 June 2004 12:50 PM CST)

You may have heard of Mary Ellen Lease who at the turn of the
century encouraged the midwest farmers to "Raise more hell
and less corn." In my own way I have adopted some tactics
to carry on a campagn of the CSGnet against a confusion of
science with Bill Powers' PCT sophistology.

Thanks for being clear about what you are up to and for demonstrating that
when it comes to confusion about science you have no peer. Scientific
disagreements are not handled by campaigns of hell raising. When you
disagree with a scientific proposal, you campaign against it by careful
observation, model building and testing.

Shows how much you actually know about how science is actually carried
on. You should ask Bill Powers if your description fits the way the
programs were administered in astronomy.

See

Thackray, John C. Editor 2OO3 _To See the Fellows Fight: Eye Witness

Accounts of Meetings of the Geological Society of London and it

Club, 1822-1868_ British Society for the History of Science

There is of course the example of the struggle over Darwinian evolutionary

theory and the role of Huxley who served as Darwin's bulldog. Darwin wasn't

of such a temperment that he was willing to engage in the struggle directly.

Then there is the book _The Linguistic Wars_ that provides an account of

the post World War Two struggle in linguistics in which Noam Chomsky had

a prominent role.

Also you might consult Geoff Harcourt ??? _Capital controversies_ which

an account of the most extended struggle between the Post-Keynesian

Joan Robinson Cambridge U.K. and the orthodox people at MIT mainly

Samuelson and Friedman.

Or, again in econmics you could take a look at what has been called the

war over methodology in late 19th century Europe, a struggle that was

in some sense continued in this country described in a recent book,

_The struggle for the Soul of Economics_

In biology the struggles between the various branches became so bitter

that the department at the University of Colorado split into 3

adminstratively independent units-- Naturalistic and field biology,

molecular biology, and theoretical ans systems biology.

If one is not interested in or capable of doing any these things then,
of course, the only way to campaign against a scientific proposal is
to raise hell.

Well, this description fits you and Bill Powers doesn't it? As you
recently admitted, you introduced an error into what became your
paper in the American Behavioral Science journal. Bill Powers described
you economic program as "a giant leap in the wrong direction." And,
Bill Powers admitted that he didn't understand the standard agreegate
economic analysis. So, Bill Powers is stuck at the stage where he
thinks Keynes is totally incompetent, and acts like Jack Horner with his
plum over this idea that Y = C + I + S.

It's too bad that PCT has attracted people like you and your fans.

I would say that it is too bad Bill Powers' work attracted a guy like you.

But I guess it's just one more of the surprising negative side effects
of getting involved with an idea that is way ahead of its time.

If you think that the PCT sophisology in support of individualism is an
Idea that is "way ahead of its time." then this is just one more indication
of the solipcistic nature of the idea.

Bill Williams

From[Bill Williams 25 June 2004 2:30 PM CST]

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.24.1918)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.1610)]

Oh, Marc. This is so tiresome.

Really?

Your account is very nice for 'flying',

Actually Rick's account isn't so nice for flying.
I was a flight instructor for a number of years.
Under some circumstances perceptual errors can
be fatal. As some may recall Rick and I had a
nice little go around concering his typically
uninformed opinions about yet one more area in
which Rick is certain that he is right when he
doesn't know the first thing about what he is
talking about.

Unless you are talking about "flying" in the
sense of being intoxicated. Hoever, although I
can not speak from a sufficient experiental
bais, I don't think Rick's ideas fly.

You may get the idea that Rick has to be right
some of the time, don't let this illustion go
to far.

Bill Williams

From[Bill Williams 25 June 2004 5:40 AM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.24.1520)]

Bill Williams (24 June 2004 12:50 PM CST)

You may have heard of Mary Ellen Lease who at the turn of the
century encouraged the midwest farmers to "Raise more hell
and less corn." In my own way I have adopted some tactics
to carry on a campagn of the CSGnet against a confusion of
science with Bill Powers' PCT sophistology.

Thanks for being clear about what you are up to and for demonstrating that
when it comes to confusion about science you have no peer.

How about the father and son team of Bill Powers and his dad TCP?

Consider what Bill Powers says, forgive the extensive quote, under the new
Peer review and all you understand.

My father, a retired scientist, has been interested in macroeconomic

theory for about 15 years (he is now 93), and has been writing about it.

The main point of his study is that he has been comparing existing economic

theories with the historical record in the Statistical Abstracts (the

record of what has happened in the US economy). He finds that the

predictions of economic theory have almost nothing to do with the facts.

In place of standard economic assumptions, he has come up with a set of

relationships that DO fit the facts, and some rather startling conclusions

about what makes the US economy run, and fail. One interesting fact is

that for the past 100 years, the expenditures by the "composite producer"

on capital costs - - i.e., investment - - has remained constant at

20 2 percent of total income, this range not been exceeded in any

year. There is no relationship between amount of investment expressed

as a fraction of total income and the Gross National Product: the same

ratio appears in good years, bad years, and all other years. There is

a fixed market for investment: the economy can't be made to grow

faster by increasing investment. And it never has been made to grow

faster in that way.

Wally Peterson p. 49. _Income, Employment and Economic Growth_

reports these figures:

1929 last year of the inter-war boom

1933 depth of the great depression

1940 recovery based partly on war orders from Europe

         GNP GDI %

1929 103.9 16.7 16.1

1933 56.0 1.6 2.9

1940 100.4 13.4 13.4

Economic Report President

Now, what is one supposed to think about the claims made above?

Gross Domestic investment shrinks from 16.1 percent of income

to 2.9 percent, and then increases to 13.9 perecent of income.

One interesting fact is

that for the past 100 years, the expenditures by the "composite producer"

on capital costs - - i.e., investment - - has remained constant at

20 2 percent of total income, this range not been exceeded in any

year.

Bill Powers describes his dad's facts as holding true for the past

100 years. I would agree that Bill Powers and his dad arrived at what

" are "some rather startling conclusions" they sure startled me.

Later Bill Powers said that he didn't know why his dad didn't include

the boom, the depression and the war period in his analysis. Yet the

claim asserted covers the "past 100 years."

What happened ? It seems rather obvious. An old guy takes up economics

very late in life. He is a bit confused. As a result he makes a claim

about the last 100 years, but his attempt at an analysis leaves out

some of the biggest events in the 20th century-- the boom, the bust and

WWII. Bill Powers says that over the last 100 years "investment" has

never been more than 22 or less than 18 percent of income. Now years in

table above indicate a very different set of facts. Rather than being

relatively constant investment plus or minus two percent, or a change

of 10 % in investment instead there is a massive shift in investment--

over 500 percent over only 4 years.

Now, if you caluclated this based upon net investment the net investment

in 1929 was probably less that zero-- that is capital was being consumed,

or worn out and not replaced. If net investment which is the investment

that actually adds to capital and therefor the measure that is expected

to add to output-- the fluctuation would be not 2 percent but rather an

infinite shift. Or figuring an other way a 16.9 shift, which figured

another way is about an 800 percent bigger shift than Bill Powers' dad

claimed represented the behavior of investment over the last 100 years.

Remember Rick says that,

when it comes to confusion about science you have no peer.

Perhaps you can point out where I've made a mistake like Bill Powers

made when he posted his dad's claim that investment was a constant

{plus or minus 2 percent) proportion of income?

And, while I may sometimes be a bit confused, I haven't as yet, as

you have done, made mistakes in other people's papers.

Now you say the motive was the caused you to introduce a bit of confusion

into what had been my paper was "noble." However, this perception on your

part of noblity may be an indication of delusions that you are my peer.

Bill Williams

[From Richard Kennaway (2004.06.25.1440 BST)]

This is a new high in low:

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

To engage in rumour-mongering over alleged character defects is the
act of a poltroon. To do so explicitly and avowedly, while telling
someone else to get their facts straight beggars belief. Does your
left hand know what your right is typing? Is this a person, or a bag
of skin around a nest of vipers?

-- Richard Kennaway

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.25.0810)]

Marc Abrams (2004.06.24.1918)--

Your account is very nice for 'flying', but it doesn't sit as well when
you're a schizophrenic and something is whispering in your ear and you
can't tell whether it's real or not.

Marc Abrams (2004.06.24.2045) --

In my opinion, PCT needs to become the defacto behavioral model for all
SD modelers.

I think you can work these things out for yourself, Marc.

And I'm really sorry to hear that you brother-in-law is schizophrenic. But
everyone has their problems. My sister-in-law's sister, for example is
married to an alcoholic psychopath.

Regards

Rick

···

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

From[Bill Williams 25 June 2004 2:20 PM CST]

[From Richard Kennaway (2004.06.25.1440 BST)]

This is a new high in low:

To engage in rumour-mongering over alleged character defects is >the act of a poltroon. To do so explicitly and avowedly, while >telling someone else to get their facts straight beggars >belief. Does your left hand know what your right is typing? Is >this a person, or a bag of skin around a nest of vipers?

Sorry you percieve the situation this way Richard

If you will check the sequence of posts it was Rick Marken who first made the accusation of intoxication.

I will attempt to get my right and left hands into somesort of collaboration this after noon and post a comment on why the notion of an individual is an unfortunate sophistology.

Bill Williams

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.25.1832)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.25.0810)]

Rick I appreciate the empathy but I'd prefer some answers instead.

I'd sincerely like to know how you would model the scenario I gave you
in PCT or HPCT. That is, I'd like to see your solution to these
problems:

You and I are standing in the woods in northern NJ. _WE_ hear a growl
and I imagine there is a tiger nearby. You imagine I'm nuts, because
there are no tigers in this part of the world. But I know what a tiger
sounds like and I run like hell and I suggest you do the same. You bend
over laughing as the tiger who escaped from a nearby wildlife park bites
your head off. Why didn't we perceive the same thing? We both 'heard'
the same sound. And how would you model this situation in HPCT?

And,

How would you 'model' schizophrenia in PCT. That is Rick, from a non-
hallucinogenic state to a hallucinogenic state and then back again.

The questions are straight forward. I hope your response for once is as
well. Can you, or can you not model these scenario's in HPCT and if you
can could you please make a simple diagram illustrating the
interactions. No equations required for this effort.

Thanks,

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

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.25.1630)]

Bill Williams 25 June 2004 5:40 AM CST]

Rick Marken (2004.06.24.1520)--

Thanks for being clear about what you are up to and for demonstrating that
when it comes to confusion about science you have no peer.

Perhaps you can point out where I've made a mistake like Bill Powers
made when he posted his dad's claim that investment was a constant
(plus or minus 2 percent) proportion of income?

I can't point to anywhere that you have made a mistake because you never
make mistakes, at least according to you. This is probably your main
confusion about science. Science isn't about not making mistakes. It's not
about making infallible pronouncements. That's what religion is about.
Science is about carefully observing, industriously modeling and then
submitting one's observations and models (explanations) to public scrutiny
and correcting one's work if mistakes are discovered. Mistakes don't prove
one to be non-scientific. They prove one to be human. Failure to admit or
correct one's mistakes is non-scientific.

You offer the following statement by Bill Powers as evidence that he is
confused about science.

One interesting fact is that for the past 100 years, the expenditures
by the "composite producer" on capital costs - - i.e., investment - -
has remained constant at 20 2 percent of total income...

You then present the following data as evidence that capital investment has
not remained constant over the last 100 years:

Wally Peterson p. 49. _Income, Employment and Economic Growth_

reports these figures:
       GNP GDI %

1929 103.9 16.7 16.1
1933 56.0 1.6 2.9
1940 100.4 13.4 13.4

What you have done here is actually very scientific; you have presented data
that suggests that capital costs (GDI) have not remained constant over at
least 3 of the last 100 years. I'm sure that if Bill Powers could be
convinced that the GNI numbers presented above are the same as the GNI
numbers used by TCP to compute capital investment then he would agree that
TCP had made a mistake.

What happened ?

That's a good question. I think TCP used as his measure of capital
investment the difference between GNP and GNIncome, both of which can be
found as entries in the Statistical Index. That is, I think he calculated
GNI as GNP-GNIncome under the assumption that if GNP represented aggregate
expenditure (per year) and GNIncome represented the component of GNP
received as income (per year) by the aggregate consumer, then the difference
is aggregate capital investment. You may consider this way of computing
capital investment to be incorrect. If so, the scientific thing to do is to
explain why it's incorrect and, thus, why Bill's statement about the
constancy of the rate of capital investment is wrong. The non-scientific
thing to do is to treat Bill's statement as heresy and to act as though
anything else Bill has said or will say on the topic of economics is now and
forevermore to be considered wrong.

And, while I may sometimes be a bit confused, I haven't as yet, as
you have done, made mistakes in other people's papers.

What I did that was wrong was not that I made a mistake but that I took it
upon myself to add a sentence to your paper without getting your approval
first.

I think it's good that you recognize that you can sometimes be mistaken
(confused) yourself. I have found that when I accept my own fallibility I am
better able to improve my work through learning and forgive the mistakes of
others through empathy.

Regards

Rick

···

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

From[Bill Williams 25 June 2004 6:15 PM CST]

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.25.1832)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.25.0810)]

Rick I appreciate the empathy but I'd prefer some answers instead.

I'd sincerely like to know how you would model the scenario I gave you
in PCT or HPCT. That is, I'd like to see your solution to these
problems:

You and I are standing in the woods in northern NJ. _WE_ hear a growl
and I imagine there is a tiger nearby. You imagine I'm nuts, because
here are no tigers in this part of the world. But I know what a tiger
sounds like and I run like hell and I suggest you do the same. You bend
over laughing as the tiger who escaped from a nearby wildlife park bites
your head off. Why didn't we perceive the same thing? We both 'heard'
the same sound. And how would you model this situation in HPCT?

Let me provide an answer from the standpoint of CCT (Cultural Control
Theory). You and Rick despite being innately identical control systems
come from different cultures. Therefore since the only difference
between you is a matter of cultural differences then the explaination
of what happened has to be explained in terms of cultural difference.

From the standpoint of PCT, as I understand the statements of PCT, the

only way aside from PCT to think about culture-- that is as a sum of
atomistic individuals, is to think about culture in terms of a some
super-organic agent Durkheimian agent. But, atomistic individualism
and totalistic collectivism don't exaust the possiblities.

Agents growup in and are maintained (in a sense) by their culture.
There is a causal connection between the agent and the culture However,
the connection is different than either the individualist (Chicago
school?) or the collectivist conception of this connection. The nature
of this connection is entirely mundane. And the mundane difference is
a recognition that ordinarily we make our choices from among the
already existing items in our environment rather than creating entirely
novel items from scratch. The reason we do so is that we can, ordinarily,
do more of the things we want to do by making use of what is already
availible to us in the enviornment. When it comes to something like
language, nearly everyone finds that it is easier to choose to learn
the already existing language rather than to generate a new language by
oneself.

The difficulties that result from ignoring the cultural environment can
be illustrated by Bill Powers' experienced with his economic test bed.
If you choose to discard the cultural environment and choose to make all
the parts of your machine entirely by yourself-- well there is a lot of
work to do and life is short.

Processes like languages, and sophistologies like economics are the
product of generations of experience, ordinarily a control system will
find that borrowing and making use of this experience is helpful. And,
this "helpfulness" can in a sense be considered in terms of a causal
connection. All perfectly mundane, but contrary to the ideologies of
"individualism" and "collectivism."

Bill Williams

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.25.1740)]

Marc Abrams (2004.06.25.1832)--

Rick I appreciate the empathy but I'd prefer some answers instead.

Since you've been involved with PCT for many years by now, I judge your
question to be one you can (or should) be able to answer yourself using
your understanding of PCT.

Regards

Rick

···

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