From Greg Williams (930517)
B.S. [Before Script] to Gary Cziko:
THANKS for your recent direct post! (Enough said.)
Joel Judd 930512
it is possible to
conceive of a systematic, but not deterministic, reorganization
I think that is reasonable to hypothesize, but I fail to see how it
necessarily supports a conception of free will choice in anything like
the traditional sense.
I hypothesize that
at least one's System Concept can be "chosen." That would, in effect,
determine behaviors in particular contexts where the concept
How about a model, or at least a diagram showing how this hypothesis
connects up with the HPCT scheme?
I think Christian scripture,
for example, contains concepts worthy of all human beings, but
nowhere does it (or any responsible religious-person) imply that
everyone HAS to adopt them.
Still, some "Christians" try to kill folks who haven't adopted them.
And, in a less violent way, pastors IN GENERAL tell their flocks that
the Word of God being given to them is THE WORD, and that the Holy
Scriptures of other religions are false. Regardless, I can accept that
most or even all religious writings (whether authored by ancient
Hebrews or Buddhists, or modern Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, or even
by David Koresh!) contain (at least here and there) "concepts worthy of
all human beings." If that were the only point of the writings, I'd
be calmer; in fact,the main point of most (but not all) of them seems
to be "ONLY WE know the TRUTH." Thus begins the path to hell on earth.
Regarding the "Boss Reality" discussion (Chuck Tucker, et al.):
It's ALL theory, according to PCT. Testing PCT notions requires testing
the predictions of those notions with OTHER theoretical notions (that
is, perceptions). This is not looking for correspondence with Boss
Reality "itself" (whatever that might mean), but looking for
correspondence with perceptions. Those perceptions (theories) are not
the same theory (perception!) being tested, so this is not the usual
coherence testing of the skeptics. After a while, some scientists get
to the point where one theory which appears to correspond quite well to
many perceptions is that they are not solipsists; that, crudely put,
there appears to be a Boss Reality independent (in various ways) of them.
I call this being a "constructed realist," and, for example, Ernst
von Glasersfeld, in correspondence with me, has indicated that this is
the position he has come to hold.
What can holding such a view do? Is Boss Reality really the gold brick
Wayne Hershberger says it is? I think it is important ETHICALLY to
have a well-tested theory that I am not the sole creator of the universe
I perceive. Some who believe THEY create it ALL will have no qualms
about attempting to DESTROY it all. David Koresh (a.k.a. Jesus the
Creator) actually succeeded, to a degree, in his solipsistic aims.