PCT and GRT

CSGnet Archive CSG2010
1

[Martin Taylor 2010.12.09.21.57]

Gavin,

You have said that your theory, which I'll call Gavin Ritz Theory

(GRT), extends and incorporates PCT (Perceptual Control Theory –
the theory that all behaviour is the control of perception). That’s
a very good thing if it turns out to be true, and for that reason
it’s very appropriate to discuss it on CSGnet. But for any such
extension to be valuable, rather than just being a different theory
that could be contrasted with PCT, you must deal with PCT as it has
been described and developed over the years. You can’t just decide
on your own that PCT isn’t what everyone on this list is taking as a
base for discussion – PCT as discovered and developed in the form
of Hierarchic PCT by Bill Powers – and usurp the name PCT to refer
to GRT.

It's fine to say this and that is wrong with the conventional view

of PCT, but since this is supposed to be a scientific mailing list
rather than a free exchange of opinion, you really ought to provide
either some justification for why X is wrong or how Y is an equally
justifiable way of dealing with an issue addressed by both X and Y.
The concept of Perceptual Control Theory has many possible
instantiations, of which Powers’s HPCT is one that has been well
developed. There are many other possibilities other than strict
HPCT, and maybe GRT is such a one, possibly more powerful than HPCT.
But we can’t know that unless GRT is developed, explained, and
tested in a way that is publicly accessible, in the way that much of
HPCT has been. Simply defining GRT by saying that the standard
definitions used in PCT (including HPCT) are wrong, handwaving away
the protestations of those who have been working with PCT using
those definitions – that doesn’t work. It’s not science, it’s
public relations, and very offputting public relations at that.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a clear and principled description of

GRT, so everyone can understand how it relates to PCT and in
particular how it relates to the HPCT specialization of PCT? If, for
example, GRT has a different definition of “control”, based on
selection rather than on magnitude variation, that’s fine, but then
it would be nice to see how the two concepts relate to each other
(if they do), rather than basing the discussion on a simple
assertion that the PCT definition of control isn’t correct within
PCT.

The PCT definition is a definition on which most of 50 years of work

have been based. GRT apparently doesn’t use the same definition.
That’s not a problem, but it does become a problem when you attempt
to impose the GRT definition on PCT, with the result that 50 years
of work suddenly is deemed to have been meaningless. Similar
comments apply to redefinition of the controlled variable. You say
GRT has a different definition than PCT does. Is there any relation
between them? Does the GRT definition include the PCT definition?

Martin
···

On 2010/12/9 7:37 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

(Gavin Ritz 2010.10.13…3NZT)

[ Martin
Taylor 2010.12.09.18.26]

           (Gavin

Ritz 2010.12.09.20.12NZT)

          Hi

there Martin

          I

accept your position on
this but do not agree with it.

          Mine

is not superior to
yours and yours to mine, they are just very different
angles.

          Best

leave it at that.

Regards

Gavin

2

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.12.10.16.43NZ)

[Martin Taylor 2010.12.09.21.57]

Gavin,

You have said that your theory, which I’ll call Gavin Ritz Theory (GRT),
extends and incorporates PCT (Perceptual Control Theory – the theory that all
behaviour is the control of perception). That’s a very good thing if it turns
out to be true, and for that reason it’s very appropriate to discuss it on
CSGnet. But for any such extension to be valuable, rather than just being a
different theory that could be contrasted with PCT, you must deal with PCT as
it has been described and developed over the years. You can’t just decide on
your own that PCT isn’t what everyone on this list is taking as a base for
discussion – PCT as discovered and developed in the form of Hierarchic PCT by
Bill Powers – and usurp the name PCT to refer to GRT.

The problem Martin is just this; I have
never proposed a Gavin Ritz Theory. What I have proposed is a potential synthesis of a number
of well know theories (well documented and researched and some to a much higher
degree than PCT, but be that as it may) that is possibly more extensive view of
the HPCT.

I make no claims about changing anything
about the structure and the nature of PCT.

It’s fine to say this and that is wrong with the conventional view of PCT,

I have never made any such claims, I have
only looked in depth at critical aspects of PCT and I believe fairly and rigorously.

but since this is supposed to be a scientific mailing
list rather than a free exchange of opinion, you really ought to provide either
some justification for why X is wrong or how Y is an equally justifiable way of
dealing with an issue addressed by both X and Y. The concept of Perceptual
Control Theory has many possible instantiations, of which Powers’s HPCT is one
that has been well developed.

I don’t think HPCT has been well
developed and as I have said before it’s only at this stage an assumption
of some form of Reality.

There are many other possibilities other than strict
HPCT, and maybe GRT is such a one, possibly more powerful than
HPCT. But we can’t know that unless GRT is developed, explained, and tested in
a way that is publicly accessible, in the way that much of HPCT has been.

As I mentioned many of these models I have
proposed are scientific models, with years of data and accessible if one
chooses. It just takes a huge amount of personal effort to digest the stuff.

Simply defining GRT by saying that the
standard definitions used in PCT (including HPCT) are wrong,

This I have never said and I challenge you
to find a contextually appropriate statement where I have done so.

handwaving away the protestations of those who have
been working with PCT using those definitions – that doesn’t work. It’s not
science, it’s public relations, and very offputting public relations at that.

I have no comment on this; in fact I have
kept very strictly to the PCT definitions.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a clear and principled description of GRT,
so everyone can understand how it relates to PCT and in particular how it
relates to the HPCT specialization of PCT? If, for example, GRT has a different
definition of “control”, based on selection rather than on magnitude
variation, that’s fine, but then it would be nice to see how the two concepts
relate to each other (if they do), rather than basing the discussion on a
simple assertion that the PCT definition of control isn’t correct within PCT.

This I have never said I have taken the rigorous definitions
as in BCP and all
the other publications, of which I have all.

The PCT definition is a definition on which most of 50 years of work have been
based. GRT apparently doesn’t use the same definition. That’s not
a problem, but it does become a problem when you attempt to impose the GRT
definition on PCT, with the result that 50 years of work suddenly is deemed to
have been meaningless.

I fail to see how you can say I am making 50
years of work meaningless when the opposite is what I desire.

Similar comments apply to redefinition of the
controlled variable. You say GRT has a different definition than
PCT does. Is there any relation between them? Does the GRT definition include
the PCT definition?

I have never said this I am using the exact
definitions from PCT.

And this is what I have been on about Martin, you are making huge assumptions
about things I have never stated, there really is a total mismatch here.

There is a serious confusion of words, meanings
terms. I really don’t enjoy dialogue with you Martin you attempt to be
personal, assume I am doing all sort of gestures of which none is true.

Please let’s leave it at this, I
really have had enough. As I said before I respect your position and if you don’t
mine, so be it.

Regards

Gavin

Martin

···

On 2010/12/9 7:37 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

(Gavin
Ritz 2010.10.13…3NZT)

[Martin Taylor
2010.12.09.18.26]

(Gavin
Ritz 2010.12.09.20.12NZT)

Hi there
Martin

I accept
your position on this but do not agree with it.

Mine is
not superior to yours and yours to mine, they are just very different angles.

Best leave
it at that.

Regards

Gavin

3

[Martin Taylor 2010.12.10.10.10]

(Gavin Ritz
2010.12.10.16.43NZ)

[ Martin
Taylor 2010.12.09.21.57]

      Gavin,

Simply defining GRT
by saying that the
standard definitions used in PCT (including HPCT) are wrong,

          This

I have never said and I challenge you
to find a contextually appropriate statement where I have
done so.

You have said that perceptual control is selection of the

“Perceptual Controlled Variable”. That’s a radical change from the
definition of perceptual control in PCT.

I think that's enough to be going on with, since to use that

definition would change the entire body of work that has gone into
the development of Perceptual Control Theory.

          Please

let’s leave it at this, I
really have had enough. As I said before I respect your
position and if you don’t
mine, so be it.

I'm not clear how a request for clarity and a scientific description

of how GRT expands on and enhances PCT or HPCT shows disrespect. Nor
do I see how it could be disrespectful to suggest that when your
theory uses a word differently from its use in PCT the difference
should be noted.

Martin
···

On 2010/12/9 11:00 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

4

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.10.0930)]

    Martin Taylor (2010.12.10.10.10)--

Gavin Ritz
(2010.12.10.16.43NZ)

I’ m not clear how a request for clarity and a scientific description
of how GRT expands on and enhances PCT or HPCT shows disrespect. Nor
do I see how it could be disrespectful to suggest that when your
theory uses a word differently from its use in PCT the difference
should be noted.

These are the kinds of questions that arise when the discussion focuses on theory per se. PCT is a theory that accounts for an observable phenomenon-- control. In particular, control as it is exhibited by living systems. So far, it accounts for that phenomenon extremely well. Any suggested changes, improvements, modifications, extensions or whatever to the theory are useful only to the extent that they account for some aspect of the phenomenon of control that is demonstrably not handled by the theory as it currently exists. And that demonstration can only be done by experimental test.

I think the only way out of this rabbit hole is to discuss (quantitatively) the relationship of any theoretical proposals to actual observations of control phenomena.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD

rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

5

[Martin Taylor 2010.12.10.12.16]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.10.0930)]

        Martin Taylor

(2010.12.10.10.10)-- Gavin Ritz
(2010.12.10.16.43NZ)

I’ m
not clear how a request for clarity and a scientific
description of how GRT expands on and enhances PCT or
HPCT shows disrespect. Nor do I see how it could be
disrespectful to suggest that when your theory uses a
word differently from its use in PCT the difference
should be noted.

  These are the kinds of questions that arise when the discussion

focuses on theory per se. PCT is a theory that accounts for an
observable phenomenon-- control. In particular, control as it is
exhibited by living systems. So far, it accounts for that
phenomenon extremely well. Any suggested changes, improvements,
modifications, extensions or whatever to the theory are useful
only to the extent that they account for some aspect of the
phenomenon of control that is demonstrably not handled by the
theory as it currently exists. And that demonstration can only be
done by experimental test.

  I think the only way out of this rabbit hole is to discuss

(quantitatively) the relationship of any theoretical proposals to
actual observations of control phenomena.

Hare,hare, though it isn’t even March yet!

It's hard to do what you suggest when you don't even agree on the

meanings of words central to both theories. In GRT, “control” means
“selection of the Perceptual Controlled Variable” and in GRT one
should not use words such as “act” and “behaviour” because they
imply “stimulus-response”. GRT is not concerned with acting on the
environment, to the extent that Gavin says it doesn’t even happen.
He, himself, does not act on the environment. That makes it very
hard to compare quantitative relationships that in PCT are based on
the observation of action and behaviour in controlling perceptions.

I do have a quibble with: "Any suggested changes, improvements,

modifications, extensions or whatever to the theory are useful only
to the extent that they account for some aspect of the phenomenon of
control that is demonstrably not handled by the theory as it
currently exists."

That way of putting things gives "the theory" a privileged status.

If another theory can be shown to account for an overlapping range
of phenomena, and accounts just as well as “the theory” on average
for those phenomena they both address, the “other theory” has just
as much justification to be considered a basis for further research
as does “the theory”.

There's another issue, too, which is the definition of "the theory".

Just what IS “the theory” you call PCT? In different messages over
the years, it has often sounded as though “PCT” meant only Bill’s
strictly hierarchic version of perceptual control. But is that
right? Is “the theory” the general statement of perceptual control,
that all behaviour is the control of perception? In that form, “the
theory” is demonstrably not true. It’s only “intentional behaviour”
that is supposed to be the control of perception. But then, does
“the theory” have a good a priori (non-circular) definition of
“intentional”? Is “the theory” strict HPCT, as you seem often to
suggest? If it is, then any PCT theory that departs from the strict
hierarchy of 11 levels is a competing theory, and most such theories
would give the same results as HPCT for most studies of the kind
that have been done. And yet we know that Bill doesn’t take the
levels too seriously, and sometimes inverts them in his modelling.
So what IS “the theory”?

I don't think the answers to the above questions matter very much.

If CSGnet were to work properly, it would be a place where PCT was
refined and its implications extended into novel areas, much as Kent
McLelland has been doing. If GRT truly is another way of looking at
PCT, and is a correct theory, it would be a considerable advance,
because up to now we know of only one way to look at PCT. But we
don’t really know what GRT is, and nor do we know what kinds of
experimental predictions it would make, so to date we can’t know
whether it is a valuable contribution.

CSGnet should not be a place where theories are pitted against each

other, unless such comparisons seriously affect the implications of
PCT itself, considered in the wider sense. I see the real question
as one of discovering the control structure that best accounts for
data that are either observed in the wider world or are measured
under laboratory conditions, and that is appropriate either for all
people or, if necessary, is found to be different for different
classes of people (e.g. do central African jungle-dwellers have the
same control structures as US college students? Do 5-year-olds have
the same structure, perhaps in an immature form, as adults, or does
the structure itself change with maturity?) .

The fact that HPCT works pretty well where it has been tested is a

mark in its favour, but it isn’t a mark against other proposed
structures, such as, for example, structures that use within-level
perceptual output-to-perceptual input connections. To compare
theories with different structural possibilities, we must indeed go
back to what you say, andsee whether we can figure out experiments
that would discriminate between them. But from the discussion a
couple of months back about a simple psychological experiment, what
to one person is a clearly discriminative experiment to another
person is not, because the theory can be manipulated to give the
same answers. It’s not easy to find a discriminative experiment in a
simple case. It’s even harder at higher levels (and most
psychologists over the last couple of centuries agree that there are
levels, whatever their favourite theory).

Martin
6

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.10.1530)]

Martin Taylor (2010.12.10.12.16)–

Rick Marken (2010.12.10.0930)–

  RM: I think the only way out of this rabbit hole is to discuss

(quantitatively) the relationship of any theoretical proposals to
actual observations of control phenomena.
MT: It’s hard to do what you suggest when you don’t even agree on the
meanings of words central to both theories.

Words point to perceptions. The words that defined control (the one’s attributed to Bjorn but actually written by Bill) point to clear, quantitative observations that I can make. There are surely other words that can be used to point to this phenomenon. But that’s what we’re doing when we try to agree on the meaning of words; we are trying to agree ont he phenomenon (perception) to which the words point. And ultimately it’s settled by pointing at the phenomenon itself. So you don’t need to keep arguing about the “true” meaning of the word “control”. Just point to it. Anyone can see what we mean by control by going to http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html or by doing any of Bill’s Demos. End of argument.

MT: In GRT, "control" means

“selection of the Perceptual Controlled Variable” and in GRT one
should not use words such as “act” and “behaviour” because they
imply “stimulus-response”.

Who cares what he says? Just ask Gavin if he agrees that what is happening at http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html is control. If he doesn’t then he is not interested in understanding what we’re interesting in understanding. No arguments necessary.

MT: I do have a quibble with: "Any suggested changes, improvements,

modifications, extensions or whatever to the theory are useful only
to the extent that they account for some aspect of the phenomenon of
control that is demonstrably not handled by the theory as it
currently exists."

That way of putting things gives "the theory" a privileged status.

Seems to me it gives the observations a privileged status.

MT: If another theory can be shown to account for an overlapping range

of phenomena, and accounts just as well as “the theory” on average
for those phenomena they both address, the “other theory” has just
as much justification to be considered a basis for further research
as does “the theory”.

Of course! Got another theory that works?

MT: There’s another issue, too, which is the definition of “the theory”. Just what IS “the theory” you call PCT?

Basically it’s the theory that p = ~r and o = ~(r - d)

MT: In different messages over

the years, it has often sounded as though “PCT” meant only Bill’s
strictly hierarchic version of perceptual control. But is that
right?

No. The essential theory is that behavior is the control of perception (as per the equations above).

MT: Is "the theory" the general statement of perceptual control,

that all behaviour is the control of perception?

Behavior is not a technical term. In PCT the relevant behavior is control (back to that phenomenon again).

MT: In that form, "the

theory" is demonstrably not true. It’s only “intentional behaviour”
that is supposed to be the control of perception. But then, does
“the theory” have a good a priori (non-circular) definition of
“intentional”?

Yes. it’s control.

MT: Is "the theory" strict HPCT, as you seem often to

suggest?

No. the hierarchy is just a testable part of the theory.

MT: I don’t think the answers to the above questions matter very much.

Darn it! Wasted my time;-)

MT: If CSGnet were to work properly, it would be a place where PCT was

refined and its implications extended into novel areas, much as Kent
McLelland has been doing.

Yes, I agree. And the only way to do that is through empirical tests of those extensions to novel areas. I thought CSGNet would be a place for discussion of research projects aimed at testing PCT. It has been that a couple times but most people are far more interested in extending the theory by thinking about it rather than by testing (empirically) the predictions of the theory to see where extensions might actually be needed.

MT: If GRT truly is another way of looking at

PCT, and is a correct theory, it would be a considerable advance,
because up to now we know of only one way to look at PCT. But we
don’t really know what GRT is, and nor do we know what kinds of
experimental predictions it would make, so to date we can’t know
whether it is a valuable contribution.

Oh come on. GRT as you call it is completely incoherent and dissociated from any observations of control phenomena. There is no there there.

MT: CSGnet should not be a place where theories are pitted against each

other, unless such comparisons seriously affect the implications of
PCT itself, considered in the wider sense.

Theories are pitted against each other when they make alternative predictions about what will be observed in experiments. CSGNet should definitely be a place where theories are pitted against each other in this sense. And this has happened; you developed an S-R/control hybrid theory of a detection experiment and I developed an alternative control theory. I plan to test these two in the near future, now that I’ve seen that the two theories make quite different prediction in certain situations.

MT: I see the real question

as one of discovering the control structure that best accounts for
data that are either observed in the wider world or are measured
under laboratory conditions, and that is appropriate either for all
people or, if necessary, is found to be different for different
classes of people (e.g. do central African jungle-dwellers have the
same control structures as US college students? Do 5-year-olds have
the same structure, perhaps in an immature form, as adults, or does
the structure itself change with maturity?) .

Now you’re talking!

MT: The fact that HPCT works pretty well where it has been tested is a

mark in its favour, but it isn’t a mark against other proposed
structures, such as, for example, structures that use within-level
perceptual output-to-perceptual input connections.

It’s not a mark for or against them. These alternative theories (proposed structures) have to be shown to work as well as the current PCT model. So far, no show, no go.

MT: To compare

theories with different structural possibilities, we must indeed go
back to what you say, andsee whether we can figure out experiments
that would discriminate between them.

YES!!

MT: But from the discussion a

couple of months back about a simple psychological experiment, what
to one person is a clearly discriminative experiment to another
person is not, because the theory can be manipulated to give the
same answers. It’s not easy to find a discriminative experiment in a
simple case. It’s even harder at higher levels (and most
psychologists over the last couple of centuries agree that there are
levels, whatever their favourite theory).

Actually, I found an experiment that discriminates the two theories just fine (as revealed by computer modeling). So, as I said above, I plan to test them empirically as soon as I can get the program set up to do it.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

7

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.12.11.12.24NZT)

[Martin Taylor 2010.12.10.12.16]
[From Rick Marken (2010.12.10.0930)]

Martin Taylor (2010.12.10.10.10)—

Gavin Ritz (2010.12.10.16.43NZ)

It’s hard to do what you suggest when you don’t even agree on the meanings of
words central to both theories. In GRT, “control” means
“selection of the Perceptual Controlled Variable” and in GRT one
should not use words such as “act” and “behaviour” because
they imply “stimulus-response”. GRT is not concerned with acting on
the environment, to the extent that Gavin says it doesn’t even happen. He,
himself, does not act on the environment. That makes it very hard to compare
quantitative relationships that in PCT are based on the observation of action
and behaviour in controlling perceptions.

. If GRT truly is another way of looking at PCT, and is a correct theory, it
would be a considerable advance, because up to now we know of only one way to
look at PCT. But we don’t really know what GRT is, and nor do we know what
kinds of experimental predictions it would make, so to date we can’t know
whether it is a valuable contribution.

Martin
there is no such thing as GRT (that’s your creation) in my last communication with you; I
have strictly (my opinion only) been looking at the definitions and interpretations
of PCT and the PCT models (mathematical) and making statements that reflect PCT
as I see it how it’s presented.

What’s
more important than the actual theory are my comments on Trust and Moral
obligations of our very private and social affairs relating to this thing
called PCT.

Regards

Gavin

8

(Gavin Ritz 2010.12.1112.51NZT)

[From
Rick Marken (2010.12.10.1530)]

Martin Taylor
(2010.12.10.12.16)–

Rick Marken
(2010.12.10.0930)–

Just ask Gavin if he agrees that what is happening at http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html
is control.

···

Agree 100%

As I’ve said many times before I’m not personally
interested in this inference level of PCT. I now assume it to be robust. After
all so much energy has been expended on it.

I’m only interested in the HPCT
levels.

9

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.10.1635)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.12.1112.51NZT)

I�m only interested in the HPCT levels.

The very existence of levels must be tested empirically. If you are
really interested only in the hierarchical aspects of PCT, then what
do you think of some of my tests of this aspect of the model,
particularly:

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/HP.html

Any suggestions about where to go from there?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

10

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.12.11.14.36NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2010.12.10.1635)]

Gavin Ritz
(2010.12.1112.51NZT)

I’m only interested in the HPCT levels.

The very existence of levels must be tested
empirically. If you are

really interested only in the hierarchical aspects of
PCT, then what

do you think of some of my tests of this aspect of the
model,

particularly:

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/HP.html

Actually I think all your
demos are good, but my personal interest is levels 4 to 11 as a whole.

For me philosophically
that’s where all the real action takes place. As I’ve said before and
will say again, you guys have solved the action-behavioural conundrum of the stimulus-response
model, and proved that’s it’s an illusion.

I thought your fly-ball
paper is a real convincer but that’s my opinion only.

It’s not convincing
me that’s the issue it’s a wider audience, I’ve been convinced for
some years.

I’m looking for
ways to talk to other people about this; it’s very challenging to get
these ideas across. Even the models don’t seem to help. And I’m beginning
to think I may know why.

But it seems that challenges
to any aspect of PCT are taken as
a call to war. Not so, it’s a call to morality.

···
11

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.10.2100)]

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.12.11.14.36NZT)

Actually I think all your
demos are good, but my personal interest is levels 4 to 11 as a whole.

I’m glad you like the demos. And I understand that your personal interest is in levels 4-11. My problem is simply that we don’t know whether levels 4-11 even exist. We don’t really know whether there is a hierarchy of control or whether there is something else – a heterarchy has been mentioned as a possibility, for example. There is VERY little research on this. We’re pretty sure that there are levels of perception and control but we don’t know what those levels are, how they are organized or even how many there might be.

For me philosophically
that’s where all the real action takes place.

To me that’s like saying all the action is in figuring out who all those angels are who are dancing on the head of the pin.

I thought your fly-ball
paper is a real convincer but that’s my opinion only.

No offense but I’d rather find out that a person understands how the model works (and how it’s tested) than to find out that they are convinced by it.

It’s not convincing
me that’s the issue it’s a wider audience, I’ve been convinced for
some years.

Bill Powers has often repeated a homily he learned as a child that is not only wise but consistent with a PCT understanding of human nature: “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” I would much rather have skeptical people understand PCT through model testing than have eager people convinced of it through rhetoric.

I’m looking for
ways to talk to other people about this; it’s very challenging to get
these ideas across. Even the models don’t seem to help. And I’m beginning
to think I may know why.

I think I know why too. Why do you think people don’t get it?

But it seems that challenges
to any aspect of PCT are taken as
a call to war. Not so, it’s a call to morality.

Please. PCT is a scientific theory of behavior. We welcome challenges. I can’t tell you how much I would like to see people develop empirically testable challenges to PCT. No one does it, so we (well, me and maybe one or two other people) have been doing it ourselves. Most of my research has been aimed at challenging PCT. Challenging PCT is what it’s all about. We are not against rigorous challenges to PCT. But we (well, me; maybe others feel differently) don’t care much for untestable assertions, based on an apparent lack of understanding of the PCT model and how it maps to the phenomena it purports to explain, about what PCT can or can’t do.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com