[Dag Forssell (2016 0917 09:30 PST)]
[Huddy Vyv (2016 0917 10:37
Thanks for this. I agree with Bruce’s ansver that the front discussion
applies to PCT very nicely. Regarding item 4. The papers in this issue,
it seems to me that each concerns a small bit of psychological
description and attempts to create a mathematical model to reproduce the
You say this is mainstream. Why have these people not discovered PCT?
Tim Carey told me that when he took classes toward his doctorate, and
wanted to have some fun, he would ask the teacher making a claim:
“How does that work?”.
My impression from 26 years of reading CSGnet is that the answer will be:
“It is very complex.” Meaning: “I don’t have a
When you say that this is mainstream, are you trying to tell me that the
vast majority of psychologists (and other life scientists) think in terms
of functional models–not meaning flow charts with boxes and arrows? If
undergrads get core teaching in functional modelling research, does this
mean that they get it, pay attention, and demand any kind of rigor in the
That is not my impression. I see models and hear of models. It has never
been more than flowcharts filled with wishful thinking.
Seems to me that every study that hits the news correlates one
description with another, and at a modest percentage. I have never seen
news of a functional model hit the news. PCT has not hit the news either,
and that is too bad.
My interpretation is that the ten year old paper you linked is terrific,
pointing in the right direction, but a fringe effort, nothing that has a
major influence on psychologists of today.
On page iii of
I wrote about my new cover illustration:
“Once you understand PCT, you realize that control is the
fundamental process of life. All living organisms control as long as they
live and when control ceases, life ceases. Control and living are
inexorably intertwined. Thus: I controlï¿½-therefore I liveï¿½-therefore I
controlï¿½-therefore I live…”
You say “is problmatic for understanding control”. As a
confirmed PCTer, to me that means “is problmatic for understanding
anything about life”.
I still think descriptions rule throughout this field.
Please show us more
At 02:37 AM 9/17/2016, Huddy Vyv > wrote:
You’ve said “descriptions rule” in psychology. I don’t know if
you are aware but, to my knowledge, every psychology undergraduate gets
core teaching in functional modelling research (e.g. connectionist
models). Some courses provide classes where students build and test their
own functional models of behaviour. This tradition emerged around the
same time as Bill Powers papers in Byte and is now very mainstream. There
is a summary here:
The difficulty is that the majority of this work, from what I can tell,
is from a linear causal point of view so is problmatic for understanding