[eetu pikkarainen 2017-02-27]
Here is my current understanding of the content of the lenghty debat. Actually the diagram below is only a little edited version of the one I posted in october.
I understand Rick’s stance as restrictions made for empirical research. I try to summarize them here:
-
In the environment there are only such elements which physics and chemistry studies (not such which biology, sociology etc. studies). These elements can be argument variables for input functions, but they themselves are not functions - or if they were,
they were anyway irrelevant for PCT research. The collections of these argument variables are marked by X in the diagram. -
Qi(1) as I and many others here in the list understands it as a variable which is a function of X and which is an argument for intput functions does not exist (because environment cannot compute that input functions and other functions are inextant or
irrelevant). -
Qi® is the observers perception, a result of his inpunt function from the arguments of X. (This I suggest should be called Po.)
-
A strict empirist is interested only in his own perceptions, nothing about X can and should be said. (And as a corollary, nothing about control systems in the environment of the observer can and should be said.)
Eetu