Misquoting

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
61

From[Bill Williams 25 June 2004 6:50 PM CST]

[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.

All I asked was "can you point out ? " this isn't quite the same as my
claiming that I have never made a mistake. Or, can you point out where
I mistakenly claimed that I never made a mistake? It seems to me that you
are making more mistakes, in first mistakenly reading what I have said,
and then without thinking, or rather mistakenly thinking, say stuff that
obvious mistaken.

This is probably your main confusion about science. Science isn't about

not making mistakes.

However, if you are frequently making mistates the science may not go
much of anywhere, or it may go into the ditch.

It's not about making infallible pronouncements.

So, was Bill Powers' claim that it wasn't going to cost anything to go
to Mars a pronouncment or not?

That's what religion is about.

Some people have the idea that religion is really about love.

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.

Bill Powers really could have been a bit less servere-- it wasn't kind for him, not me you understand, to have called your economic (not I am still not going to call it a model) program "a giant leap in the wrong direction.

Mistakes don't prove one to be non-scientific.

But you see I never made the mistake of thing anything of the kind.

They prove one to be human.

No, I don't think so. Say your dog poops on the carpet. That is a mistake, but it doesn't make your dog human.

Failure to admit or correct one's mistakes is non-scientific.

But, of course. However, the other side to this is that admitting or correcting mistakes is not neccesarily a contribution to science.

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

This is where the issue of subjectivity, solipcism and "All I can know is what I percieve comes into play. Science isn't about Bill Powers' convictions. We know what Bill Powers' convictions have been regarding TCP. I get blamed for pointing out errors and attacking Bill Powers' dad. Ordinarily people are going to understand that there is a difference between science and the sort of things that sometimes develop between fathers and sons. In the CSG program Bill Powers' dad's work is troted out, and suddenly there is somehow an assumed obligation to "contribute" to what many people would see in terms of father and son issues.

that at 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.

It isn't that the computation is incorrect, as it is, as I understand it, that Bill Powers' dad apparently claimed that the constancy of investment to income held for a hundred year period and didn't check the fluctionations generated by the boom, the bust, and the war to see if his claim genuinely held for the 100 year period.

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.

Scientifically I shouldn't have to explain "why" Bill Powers' dad made a mistake of not checking to see that these years didn't match his claim about the constancy of GDP and GDI.

It should be enough to show, not "why" but how it is that the claim is not correct.

ANd, Isn't that what I've done? I've found data, it took about five minutes.

What Bill Powers' dad should have done before claiming what he, and what Bill Powers might have done before he repeated his dad's claim was to compute the numbers for every year of the hundred years for which the claim was made. Bill Powers initially attempted to explain why his dad didn't present data for the years of the boom, the bust and the war moblization as being the result of data not having been collected for those years. This was, and is, an astonishing argument

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.

It may be a bit of an exageration to accuse me of religious bigotry because I happened to notice that something that Bill Powers dad said about an economic relations was wrong. And, it was wrong.

I find it strange that you are mixing a discussion of the methodology of science and claims concerning heresy. There is a sense in which science is connected to skepticism and unbelief, rather than to belief, and the question of orthodoxy of belief. As to what attitude we should toward what Bill Powers has to say about economics-- I don't think it is going matter much. I hope at least that Bill Powers succeeds in developing a colaborative book on control theory. If such a project works out, and I hope that it does, then there is little likelyhood that he will be inclined to continue the test-bed project.

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.

Rick this is I think a strange way of ending a sequences of posts that began with a claim that,

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

I would say based on the evidence provided that Bill Powers' dad was a lot more confused than I have ever been in approaching economics in a scientific spirit. Lets not get side tracked into a discussion of self improvement, and forgiveness and lose sight of your factual claim-- that is,

when it comes to confusion about science [Bill Williams has] no peer.

Bill Powers' dad, Bill Powers and you made too many claims that were not based upon evidence. Bill Powers' dad never computed the numbers that he should have to support his claims.

when it comes to confusion about science [Bill Williams has] no peer.

I would say that when it comes to confusions concerning economics Bill Powers' dad, Bill Powers and Rick Marken have had comparatively very few peers.

Bill Powers and Rick Marken when they are disturbed have a persistent habit of saying things about me, such as Williams doesnt' understand anything, or he knows nothing, or this latest that as far as confusion, I am more confused than anyone about science. Nobody, it seems is more confused than Williams about science. This probably makes is hard to endure when I can show in a specific but crucial instance that I have been right and that they have been wrong.

It may be sometimes be difficult, even in science to arrive at a conclusive judgment concerning right and wrong. However, it is easier to see who it is that continues to work a given field and who goes elsewhere to find softer ground.

Bill Williams

62

[From Bill Powers (2004.06.25.1903 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2004.06.25.1630)--

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.

Actually, in his book "Leakage," he explains what he means on pages 6
through 9. He does not use the term "investment" in his definition -- that
was my loose interpretation of his words.

He begins the section on "Costs of Production" by indicating the two kinds
of costs: costs of producing capital goods and services, and costs of
producing consumer goods and services. Capital costs, he says, include "the
costs of depreciation and replacement of existing equipment, the costs of
new and improved equipment expected to increase output per capita, and
capital income for owners of property and the means of production; that is,
profit." (page 6)

After plotting the total amount spent on consumer goods and services
against Gross National Income, he notes that the points for the years
1970-1985 lie very close to a straight line indicating that consumer-goods
costs were close to 80% of total expenditures during that period. In the
next chapter he shows that this relationship continues for the data he
could obtain from 1868 to 1985. As I have verified by looking up the source
materials he cited, he excluded nothing that was available to him.

"The statistical record over many years shows that the cost of producing
and maintaining capital goods and services, including profit, was never
much different from the average. The average was about 20 percent of the
total cost of production as shown by the data given graphically in Figure
1-1. For many of the years between 1868 and 1985, the data show the gross
national income per year and the corresponding amounts spent for consumer
goods and services."
(page 8)

The term investment enters this way on page 9:

"" ... the straightness of the line indicates that more output per capita
was obtained simply by learning how to get more output per dollar of
capital expenditure; growth never required a relative increase of investment."

The amount spend for consumer goods and services is a remarkably constant
80% of the total cost of production, leaving the rest, I presume, as
capital costs including profit.In Chapter Three he deals somewhat with the
Great Depression and World War 2, but I think this is mostly an exercise in
applying the concept of leakage as a premise, and does not support (or
deny) that thesis. It would be interesting to see a more complete data set
for Figure 1-1 that included those generally anomalous years. Do your Web
sources have such data?

Best,

Bill P.

P.S. Don't tell Bill Williams about this. He is scared to death that TCP
might have been right about something. He'd rather not know what TCP
actually said.

63

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.06.25 22:27)]

Rick Marken (2004.06.24.1400)--

···

At 02:06 PM 6/24/2004 -0700, Richard Marken wrote:

Marc Abrams (2004.06.24.1550)--
> 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.

She was 18 months old.

http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_keller.hcsp

64

From[Bill Williams 26 June 2004 1:30 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.06.25.1903 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2004.06.25.1630)--

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.

Actually, in his book "Leakage," he explains what he means on pages 6
through 9. He does not use the term "investment" in his definition -- that
was my loose interpretation of his words.

An inocent error. However, when you describe the concept in terms of "investment"
then it is natural for someone to test a claim that investment has been a constant
fraction of income for income for the past century by checking to see whether or
not this happens to be true. Now that I have demonstrated that investment has not
been a constant fraction of income, it turns out that "investment" wasn't really
investment.

"The statistical record over many years shows that the cost of producing
and maintaining capital goods and services, including profit, was never
much different from the average.

This is intersting. Ordinarily when reading the phrase "cost of production"
one would think that what was meant was the expediture, or expenditure per
unit. Instead what TCP seems to have meant by cost was the proportion of
income devoted to capital expenditure.

The average was about 20 percent of the
total cost of production as shown by the data given graphically in Figure
1-1. For many of the years between 1868 and 1985,

The claims presented for the ratio were presented in terms of the last 100 years
rather than for many of the last hundred years. Bill's dad's actual claim is
far more modest than the way his claim was presented. Would "many of the years"
conform,to the claim made? This wouldn't be surprizing, but then it wouldn't
be nearly as "remarkable" as a claim made that the ratio held for the last
100 years. The two claims are two quite different claims.

the data show the gross

national income per year and the corresponding amounts spent for consumer
goods and services."
(page 8)

The term investment enters this way on page 9:

"" ... the straightness of the line indicates that more output per capita
was obtained simply by learning how to get more output per dollar of
capital expenditure; growth never required a relative increase of investment."

What was meant is ambigious

The amount spend for consumer goods and services is a remarkably constant
80% of the total cost of production, leaving the rest, I presume, as
capital costs including profit.

In Chapter Three he deals somewhat with the Great Depression and World War 2,

I take it that these are years, as I have said all along, that do not conform
to the "remarkable" ratio which has been rather loosely been described as
holding for the past hundred years when the ratio actually was described by
Bill Powers' dad as holding for "many of the years."

but I think this is mostly an exercise in
applying the concept of leakage as a premise, and does not support (or
deny) that thesis.

It would be interesting to see a more complete data set
for Figure 1-1 that included those generally anomalous years. Do your Web
sources have such data?

P.S. Don't tell Bill Williams about this. He is scared to death that TCP
might have been right about something. He'd rather not know what TCP
actually said.

Actually I had a considerable experience with what "TCP actually said." I
may be among the few CSGnet folk who have had the opportunity to hear what
TCP had to say.

Bill Powers' dad and I had an extended, you wouldn't call it a conversation,
TCP wasn't at all interested in what I had to say about economics or anything
else, But, TCP could get excited when he talked about concrete. TCP really
did know a lot about concrete. And, so he seemed to enjoy telling me about
concrete, and I enjoyed listening to such an interesting topic.

If TCP is going to be honored for something it ought to be for the genuine
work he did regarding the structural characteristics of concrete.

As far as being "scared to death" of TCP, Bill Powers' dad was a man in late
old age by the time I met him. He was a formitable personality but he was
not at all a threatening figure or intellect. It never occured to me to be
frightened of TCP, I would however think that being "scared to death" of
TCP is something that would be more likely to be the case if one was a small
child in Bill Powers' dad's care. Now that I believe might have been really
scary.

Maybe I am sorry I brought this up just to refute Rick's claim that I have
no peer when it comes to being confused about science. But, since the topic
is now in play, it might indeed be interesting to see what the result would
be if the claim concerning the constancy of what has sometimes, TCP, Bill
Powers and Rick Marken, claim that investment has been a constant ratio
during the past 100 years.

Why don't we compromise? I will concede that TCP knew a lot about concrete,
if Bill Powers and Rick Marken will concede that the way TCP described his
results was a more accurate description of what TCP meant, than Bill Powers'
or Rick Marken's mis-description of TCP's work.

TCP never as I understand it now, ever actually claimed that his ratio
held "for the last 100 years." Rather he claimed that it held instead
"For many of the years between 1868 and 1985," p. 8. the _Leakages_ book

Having refuted the initial claim that Bill Powers and Rick Marken made in
behalf of his dad's work never the less I am still the dunce, and the
effort goes on to prove that Bill Powers' dad was a remarkable man.

The numbers I produced do not conform to the way Rick described the claim.
Nor do they conform to the way that Bill Powers described the claim. Of
course when I first heard this claim from Bill Powers it was obviously not
true.

The really interesting thing fact that is coming out only now is that I get
so little credit for immeadiately seeing that the claimed constancy of
investment could not be true. I am still being charged with being "scared to
death by the possiblity that what Bill Powers' dad said might be true." In
retrospect what I find really interesting is that neither Bill Powers nor
Rick Marken were themselves sufficiently interested in what Bill Powers'
dad said to have read and understood what TCP actually said. What Bill
Powers' dad actually said, sure wasn't what Bill Powers seems to have
thought he said when he wrote the post that started the Economics thread.
Nor is it what Rick Marken thought that Bill Powers' dad said as late as
the day before yesterday.

Ironically this dispute pops up on a thread that Bill Powers' started to
adress the perception that people have been misquoted on the CSGnet.
As it turns out one of the folks who has been very badly misrepresented
is Bill Powers' own dad. And, this is a misquotation they can not blame on
Bill Williams because I have never actually seen a copy of the book let
alone open it. No, the misquotation has been perpetuated by Bill Powers
and Rick Marken. Shame.

It's far worse than a crime, it's a blunder.

Bill Williams

65

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.26.0800)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.25.1740)]

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.

First I appreciated your empathy, now your feeling that I already know
the answer. But unfortunately I don't.

I asked because every time I attempt to diagram these situations using
HPCT I run into a wall with PCT's definition of 'perceptions' and the
lack of an integrating imagination component.

Please don't refer me to Chap. 15 in B:CP. I believe the chapter is
worthless in explaining these situations. If I am wrong here please help
point me in the right direction.

I guess when Bill comes out with his revised book, and all his scattered
thoughts over these many years is put between two covers of a revised
book, a PCT answer might surface. I guess I'll have to wait for the PCT
answer to these questions until then. In the mean time I guess I need to
work on some answers for myself.

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

66

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.26.0856)]

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

Let me provide an answer from the standpoint of CCT (Cultural Control
Theory).

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.

I agree with you and feel that all three, or however many different
categories one can define exist simultaneously within and between each
of us and are not mutually exclusive.

This thinking is firmly in line with my notion that we learn what we
like and don't like, that is, what makes us 'feel good' or not
(physiologically) and our reference's for these things are mitigating
factors in why we do what we do.

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

67

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.26.1115)]

Marc Abrams (2004.06.26.0800)]

I asked because every time I attempt to diagram these situations using
HPCT I run into a wall with PCT's definition of 'perceptions' and the
lack of an integrating imagination component.

OK. Let's look at your scenario.

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?

But we do hear the same thing. You said _we_ hear a growl, which I take to mean that we both hear the same thing, a growl. You imagine that the growl is that of an approaching tiger and you control for that imagined perception by running from the growl. I don't control for that imagined perception, which turns out to be a mistake.

But neither of us is actually controlling for avoiding the tiger because we can't perceive the the tiger. By controlling for the imagined tiger you have, as a side effect, avoided the real tiger. Because I did not control for avoiding an imagined tiger I got eaten by an actual tiger. But both results (avoiding the tiger and getting eaten by it) were completely fortuitous. Your avoidance of the tiger was an accidental side effect, not the result of successful control of your perception of the actual tiger and my failure to avoid the tiger was also an accidental side effect, not the result of my unsuccessful efforts to control my perception of the actual tiger.

Regards

Rick

···

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

68

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.26.1727)]

[From Rick Marken
(2004.06.26.1115)]

I appreciate your attempt at answering
one of my questions. Why you did not attempt the second one on schizophrenia I
have no idea but I’m not looking too get water from a stone here.

You say:

But neither of us is actually controlling for avoiding the tiger
because we can’t perceive the the tiger. By controlling for the imagined tiger
you have, as a side effect, avoided the real tiger.

Are you saying that Helen Keller could not ‘perceive’
anything because she was blind, or that any other person who is blind from
birth cannot ‘perceive’ anything? Are you actually making this
claim? How is controlling for an ‘imagined’ perception different
than controlling for any ‘real’ sensory input and how would you
know the difference?

If you were blindfolded and someone gave you something to
eat and it smelled like chocolate and tasted like chocolate, how would you know
if it was not really dog poop with food flavoring added? And even if you weren’t
blindfolded and someone was clever enough, how could you perceive anything but.
If I lie or deceive you that does not change what you perceive. It changes what
you ultimately expect from the
perception, but it does not change the perception. That is one reason why most
kinds of deceptions are illegal, unless of course you are in the entertainment business
and practice magic or illusions

And finally, what is it a ‘side effect’ of? In
this scenario we obviously did not ‘perceive’ the same thing,
although we both ‘sensed’ the same thing from the environment. What
I wanted from you was a diagram of how this played out in HPCT, not an Alice in
Wonderland story.

I might be mistaken, but I think Bill stated in the past
that these kinds of problems were not currently answerable by HPCT, but if they
are not, how can you possibly claim to have a theory for all behavior?

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

···
69

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.26.1645)]

Marc Abrams(2004.06.26.1727)--

I appreciate your attempt at answering one of my questions. Why you
did not attempt the second one on schizophrenia I have no idea but I�m
not looking too get water from a stone here.

My impression is that your questions don't represent an honest effort
to find out how PCT might approach explaining things like
schizophrenia. I think so because, instead of replying with helpful
suggestions, you just dismiss my answers. Since my answer regarding the
tiger in NJ didn't satisfy you I can't imagine that anything I say
about schizophrenia would be any more convincing. I think you're
already convinced that PCT can't handle these phenomena and you just
want to prove to me that it can't. Which is fine. I'm just not
interested in playing the game.

I think you're wasting your time by asking these questions and I'm
wasting my time by trying to answer them. You already believe that PCT
can't answer them and I believe PCT can, at least at the general and
qualitative level at which they are posed. But I'm not interested in
testing PCT in terms of my ability to use it to construct plausible
"stories" to explain imagined scenarios. I'm interested in testing PCT
as a quantitative model of the organization of observed behavioral
phenomena, at both the individual and social level. My approach to
testing PCT involves the development of working models and testing
those models against properly collected behavioral data. I think there
are other forums for people who enjoy testing models by seeing if they
can make up convincing (to themselves, I suppose) "stories" that are
loosely based on those models. I think you'll be much happier if you
stick to those forums.

Regards

Rick

···

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

70

From[Bill Williams 26 June 2004 7:30 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.26.1645)]

Marc Abrams(2004.06.26.1727)--

I appreciate your attempt at answering one of my questions. Why you
did not attempt the second one on schizophrenia I have no idea but I'm
not looking too get water from a stone here.

My impression is that your questions don't represent an honest effort
to find out how PCT might approach explaining things like
schizophrenia.

Marc, you ought to understnd, not that I am telling you anything new of
course, that when Rick is says, "an honest effort" what Rick is talking
about is Bill Powers' operational definition of honesty in which one
thing is said in public and an entirely different thing is said in
private. Marc can sometimes be anoyning, but I don't think there is any
reason to doubt that he really genuinely does want to find out how human
behavior works.

I think there
are other forums for people who enjoy testing models by seeing if they
can make up convincing (to themselves, I suppose) "stories" that are
loosely based on those models.

Sucb as the story that Bii Powers and you as well "loosely based" upon
Bill Powers' dad's attempt to construct an alternative economic theory?

Rick goes on to say,

I think you'll be much happier if you stick to those forums.

Rick could have said that the diagnosis of "schizophrenia" is so vague and problably is uesed as a label for so many different conditions that it is hopeless to attempt to model a catch-all set of symptoms. And, Rick is tired of being known as the guy who thought pedophiles would make good police officers. So, I expect that Rick may take up the new party line and put on a white coat and the lexicon of positivism.

All in all probably a good thing.

Bill Williams

71

From[Bill Williams 26 June 2004 8:00 PM CST]

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.26.0856)]

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

Let me provide an answer from the standpoint of CCT (Cultural Control
Theory).

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.

I agree with you and feel that all three, or however many different
categories one can define exist simultaneously within and between each
of us and are not mutually exclusive.

This thinking is firmly in line with my notion that we learn what we
like and don't like, that is, what makes us 'feel good' or not
(physiologically) and our reference's for these things are mitigating
factors in why we do what we do.

But, are we really in agreement?

I would claim that while we obviously learn from experience about what is and is not physiologically functional, we also learn about things about what we are expected to enjoy and that this learning in some important physiological sense over-rides what might be considered physiologically functional.

A good example is the habit of smoking. No one that I have encountered said that they learned to smoke because they enjoyed smoking. All the people that I have asked said initially smoking made them feel ill. Yet they persisted until they learned to perceive smoking as making them feel somehow better.

Obviously something complex is going on. Without attempting to describe what is going on, it seems to me that whatever is going on is in part due to a culture and the multiple signs that a culture provides concerning the meaning of smoking. The physiology of the "skin bag" is clearly important. However the cultural meaning that we assign to the skin bag is important as well.

Bill Williams

72

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.26.2204)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.26.1645)]

My impression is that your questions don't represent an honest effort
to find out how PCT might approach explaining things like
schizophrenia. I think so because, instead of replying with helpful
suggestions, you just dismiss my answers.

Let me get this straight. I disagree with your story so that means I'm
not really interested in a PCT perspective. Hmmm. I guess you and Moses
are brothers. Btw, when did you get the tablets?

I think you're wasting your time by asking these questions and I'm
wasting my time by trying to answer them.

Yes, I think you're right, but not for the reasons you mention. I'm
wasting my time asking because you have no answers and more importantly
you're unwilling to admit it and unwilling to try to work toward some.
Go back into your bunker, you're most comfortable there anyway.

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

73

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.26.2217)]

From[Bill Williams 26 June 2004 8:00 PM CST]

Bill, I wasn't asking Rick to explain schizophrenia. I was asking him to
explain two aspects of it from an HPCT perspective. I was interested in
the processes of going into and out of hallucinations and the
'perceptions' that those hallucinations generated.

I guess I was hallucinating myself in thinking that maybe Rick had the
capacity to think outside the box and the current limited scope of HPCT.

Foolish me.

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

74

From[Bill Williams 26 June 2004 10:40 PM CST]

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.26.2217)]

I guess I was hallucinating myself in thinking that maybe Rick > had the capacity to think outside the box and the current
limited scope of HPCT.

Foolish me.

Actually I think Rick has display a very considerable capacity to think "outside the box." Anyone who is capable of suggesting that Pedophiles would make good police officers is obviously capable of "thinking outside the box."

Bill Williams

75

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.06.27 06:58 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2004.06.26.1115)–

Marc Abrams
(2004.06.26.0800)]

I asked because every time I attempt to
diagram these situations using

HPCT I run into a wall with PCT’s definition of ‘perceptions’ and the

lack of an integrating imagination component.

OK. Let’s look at your scenario.

`

`

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?

But we do hear the same thing. You said we hear a growl, which I
take to mean that we both hear the same thing, a growl. You imagine
that the growl is that of an approaching tiger and you control for that
imagined perception by running from the growl. I don’t control for
that imagined perception, which turns out to be a mistake.

But neither of us is actually controlling for avoiding the tiger because
we can’t perceive the the tiger.

I think the key difference is expressed in the phrase “but I know
what a tiger sounds like”. Marc has a memory/reference for the sound
of a tiger growling that (according to the “but” in the story)
you do not have.

According to the B:CP model of category perception, Marc has an input
function for the category “tiger” for which this
memory/reference perception is an input. If you see the tail of a dog
behind a bush, you perceive a dog. If Marc perceives the (familiar) sound
of a tiger’s growl, he perceives a tiger. You also have an input function
for the category “tiger”, but among its inputs you do not have
a memory/reference perception established by hearing an actual tiger’s
growl.

The integration of diverse perceptions in the input function of a
category recognizer is the proposal in B:CP for the functional equivalent
of Marc’s “integrating imagination component”, at least in this
situation. According to this model, when a category recognizer receives
sufficient inputs you imagine the other inputs.

Another interpretation of the story, using the same mechanism, is that
you recognize the growl but you discount it because there are
insufficient other inputs to the category recognizer for
“tiger”. “There are no tigers living in the woods of
northern New Jersey.” In the same way, if you were looking at the
calm surface of a lake and saw what looked like the tail of a dog wagging
above the surface, you might say “that looks just like a dog’s
tail” but you wouldn’t say “oh, there’s a dog.” This
implies that diverse perceptions for “appropriate context” are
input to each category recognizer, and may even imply that such inputs
are also categorial.

    /Bruce

Nevin

···

At 11:13 AM 6/26/2004 -0700, Rick Marken wrote:

76

From [Marc Abrams
(2004.06.27.0815

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.06.27 06:58 EDT)]

Thank you Bruce, a very nice PCT interpretation and one I
concur with. What I asked Rick for was an HPCT
version of that.

As I asked in; From
[Marc Abrams
(2004.06.26.1727)]

What I wanted from you was a diagram of how this
played out in HPCT, not an Alice in Wonderland story.

There is obviously an ‘interaction’ of some
sort going on. How does HPCT currently handle this? I thought that Rick might
have an idea or two.

As long as we keep it at the ‘input’ function
level we can make up some very nice stories. It gets a bit murkier when you try
to get some details on exactly what that ‘input’ function is
actually constructed with. Chapter 15 in B:CP provides some theoretical
possibilities, but I find them lacking for a number of reasons. Unfortunately
it seems that talking about that makes you an ‘enemy’ of the state
and persona non-gratis on CSGnet. It’s not my loss though.

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply and attempt to
answer my question. You’re a gentlemen.

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

···
77

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.27.0900)]

Bruce Nevin (2004.06.27 06:58 EDT)

I think the key difference is expressed in the phrase "but I know what a tiger sounds like". Marc has a memory/reference for the sound of a tiger growling that (according to the "but" in the story) you do not have.

This explanation is really no different than mine. I said

You imagine that the growl is that of an approaching tiger and you control for that imagined perception by running from the growl. I don't control for that imagined perception, which turns out to be a mistake.

Imagining the growl to be that of a tiger requires knowing what a tiger sounds like. Marc controls for the growl, not only because he knows what a tiger sounds like but also because he imagines that the growl is actually coming from a tiger (rather than from an animal native to NJ that sounds like a tiger or from a prankster making tiger sounds or whatever). I don't control for the growl either because I don't know what a tiger sounds like (your explanation) or because I think it's unlikely that such a growl in the woods of NJ would be produced by a tiger.

Regardless of why we think the growl is a tiger's or not, the important part of the explanation (the part you leave out) is that you have to assume that Marc _controls_ for the growl sound, acting to keep it at zero by running from it, while I don't. Simply knowing that it's the sound of a tiger doesn't lead to any action. There must be a control system in place, one that acts to control for the sound of the growl. This would explain why Marc runs and I don't. Of course, this explanation also predicts that Marc will run every time he hears a tiger sound, whether it is produced by a nearby tiger, a person imitating a tiger or a digital sound system or whatever. This means Marc would be expected to run out of the room every time he hears a tiger on the radio or on TV. Maybe he does.

But it's important to keep in mind that Marc is not controlling for avoiding a tiger because he can't perceive the tiger. He is controlling for keeping the sound of the growl at zero. If there is actually a tiger growling in the woods, then this control will lead to escape from the tiger as a fortuitous side effect. If there actually is no tiger -- just someone making tiger sounds, say -- then this control will simply avoid the growl sound, and the person making the sound will get a good laugh.

Regards

Rick

···

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

78

From [Marc Abrams
(2004.06.27.1222)]

[From Rick Marken
(2004.06.27.0900)]

But it’s important to keep in mind that Marc is not controlling for
avoiding a tiger because he can’t perceive the tiger. He is controlling for
keeping the sound of the growl at zero. If there is actually a tiger growling
in the woods, then this control will lead to escape from the tiger as a
fortuitous side effect. If there actually is no tiger – just someone making
tiger sounds, say – then this control will simply avoid the growl sound, and
the person making the sound will get a good laugh.

Wrong !!!

How can you possibly make such preposterous claims of what
someone is controlling for when you don’t even have a clue in hell as to what
someone is actually perceiving.

It seems to me that you have taken behaviorism to a new
level. Instead of the environment ‘causing’ behavior, it is now
solely responsible for ‘causing’ our ‘perceptions’.

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

···
79

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.27.1000)]

Marc Abrams(2004.06.27.1222)--

Rick Marken (2004.06.27.0900)--

But it's important to keep in mind that Marc is not controlling for
avoiding a tiger because he can't perceive the tiger.

Wrong !!!

How can you possibly make such preposterous claims of what someone is
controlling for when you don�t even have a clue in hell as to what
someone is actually perceiving.

Actually, my clue "in hell" (apt) was your original description of the
situation: "You and I are standing in the woods in northern NJ. _WE_
hear a growl and I imagine there is a tiger nearby." I didn't see
anything in there about you perceiving the tiger. I guess it was a
trick question.

Rick

···

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

80

From[Bill Williams 27 June 2004 12:20 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.27.1000)]

Marc Abrams(2004.06.27.1222)--

Rick Marken (2004.06.27.0900)--

I guess it was a trick question.

And, the scientific purpose of this "trick question" was???

Bill Williams