PCT and Scientific Revolutions

CSGnet Archive CSG2010
21

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.09.1031 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.02.09.1505 UT) --

BG: I am the first to admit that I have never understood PCT. If I did understand PCT, however, I would have no difficulty accounting for the way in which you and Rick defend your perception of the fundamental correctness of the current state of the theory. In fact, if you behaved in any other way, it would call the correctness of HPCT into question. Never give up. Never give in. As the saying goes, not always right, but never uncertain.

BP: Roger on the hostility.

Bill P.

22

[From Richard Kennaway (2010.02.09.1740 GMT)]

[From Bruce Gregory 92010.02.09.1655 UT)]
I like your reasoning. This this on for size.

Claim: All behavior can be described by quantum field theory.

This claim can be called into question by producing evidence that casts doubt on it.

Nothing can be called into question by merely asking "is this true"?

If you have reason to dispute this claim, go ahead and dispute it, by finding a behavior that cannot be accurately described by quantum field theory.

I don't understand your point. Quantum field theory is rather distant from the behaviour of living organisms, and I am not aware of anyone trying to "describe behaviour by QFT", except for Penrose's speculations about quantum computing in the microtubules. Besides, I am rather distant from quantum field theory.

PCT, on the other hand, is very close to the behaviour of living organisms, and provides testable concrete descriptions and predictions of what is going on in many examples.

So what was your point?

···

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

23

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.09.1842 UT)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.09.1031 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.02.09.1505 UT) --

BG: I am the first to admit that I have never understood PCT. If I did understand PCT, however, I would have no difficulty accounting for the way in which you and Rick defend your perception of the fundamental correctness of the current state of the theory. In fact, if you behaved in any other way, it would call the correctness of HPCT into question. Never give up. Never give in. As the saying goes, not always right, but never uncertain.

BP: Roger on the hostility.

BG: I sense a disturbance to a controlled perception. The hostility is the result of physiological activity designed to minimize error. Is the process working? Or is reorganization inevitable?

Bruce

24

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.09.1910 UT)]

[From Richard Kennaway (2010.02.09.1740 GMT)]

So what was your point?

I was defending a perception against a disturbance. The idea of “having a point” is folk psychology. The sooner we get beyond it, the better.

Bruce

25

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.10. 20.06NZT)

[From Richard Kennaway
(2010.02.09.1740 GMT)]

[From Bruce Gregory
92010.02.09.1655 UT)]

I like your reasoning. This this on for size.

Claim: All behavior can be described by quantum
field theory.

This claim can be called into question by
producing evidence that

casts doubt on it.

Nothing can be called into question by merely
asking “is this true”?

If you have reason to dispute this claim, go ahead
and dispute it,

by finding a behavior that cannot be accurately
described by quantum

field theory.

RK: I don’t understand your point. Quantum field
theory is rather

distant from the behaviour of living organisms,

GR: I don’t think it is. The ATP Synthase
molecular engine is a proton engine that drive (Walker 1997) the chemical equations far from equilibrium. Chemical
kinetics is the basis of all thinking, so I don’t think this line of
questioning is out of the ordinary. I’ve had plenty to say about this in
the last few weeks. In fact time
and energy are closely related and time is a key component of human logic. (Jaques 1993).

In fact I’m trying to show that energy and PCT
are in-fact very much related.

RK: and I am not aware of

anyone trying to “describe behaviour by
QFT”,

GR: Someone should start.

RK: except for Penrose’s

speculations about quantum computing in the
microtubules. Besides, I

am rather distant from quantum field theory.

RK: PCT, on the other hand, is very close to the
behaviour of living

organisms, and provides testable concrete descriptions
and

predictions of what is going on in many examples.

So what was your point?

···
26

[From Richard Kennawawy (2010.02.10.0932 GMT)]

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.10. 20.06NZT)
So what was your point?

Oh, that Bruce Gregory is just trolling. Forget it.

···

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

27

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.10.1200 UT)]

[From Richard Kennawawy (2010.02.10.0932 GMT)]

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.10. 20.06NZT)
So what was your point?

Oh, that Bruce Gregory is just trolling. Forget it.

Quite the contrary. As far as I can tell, all learning must be the result of reorganization in an HPCT model. I don't see how it could be otherwise. You might perceive a possible reference perception outside the system, but in order to control the associated perception you must either (1) already have a system in place, or (2) reorganize to create a control mechanism.

If this is incorrect, please tell me.

Bruce

28

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.10.1222)]

[From Richard Kennawawy (2010.02.10.0932 GMT)]

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.10. 20.06NZT)
So what was your point?

Oh, that Bruce Gregory is just trolling. Forget it.

p.s. You can’t tell what perception an HPCT system is controlling unless you perform tests for the controlled variable. See [From Rick Marken (2010.02.06.1500)].

Bruce

29

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.10.1440 UT)]

[From Richard Kennaway (2010.02.09.1637 GMT)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.09,1625 UT)]
Is PCT an empirical theory? I only ask because Corollary 1 and Corollary 2 are, of course, assumptions. If these assumptions cannot be called into question, PCT is largely immune to disconfirmation. That is, so long as PCT models describe simple tracking experiments, they are ipso facto valid models of all human behavior. All behavior always involves control because the theory requires it. I’m not sure why it took me so long to realize this. Better late than never! Thanks for making this explicit.

Anything can be called into question by producing evidence that casts doubt on it.

Nothing can be called into question by merely asking “is this true”?

If you have a reason to dispute these Corollaries, go ahead and dispute them, by finding a behaviour that cannot be accurately described by the closed-loop control model.

There are two types of stories. Stories that can be called into doubt by evidence, and stories that cannot be called into doubt by evidence. If you want to be taken seriously it would seem to me that the onus falls on those who make the claim rather than on those who are skeptical. Consider the follow example.

Claim: Over the course of history the earth has been visited by extraterrestrials.

I rather doubt (but I could be wrong) that you would say, “If you have reason to dispute this claim, go ahead and dispute it by producing evidence that casts doubt on it.” The very fact that, as far as those who make the claim are concerned, there is no evidence that can cast doubt on it demonstrates that this story falls into the category that cannot be called into doubt by evidence. Other stories that fall into this category include Intelligent Design and the story that the universe was created by an all-loving entity that only wants humans to be happy.

Bruce

30

[From Richard Kennaway (2010.02.10.1501 GMT)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.10.1440 UT)]
There are two types of stories. Stories that can be called into doubt by evidence, and stories that cannot be called into doubt by evidence. If you want to be taken seriously it would seem to me that the onus falls on those who make the claim rather than on those who are skeptical. Consider the follow example.

I am familiar with these concepts.

But if you want to claim that PCT is an undisprovable quasi-religious faith you wil have to bring to the table more than insinuations and questions you show no sign of having seriously thought about. For example, you could read the LCS volumes, Richard Marken's paper on baseball catching, and so on, which will give you plenty of empirical evidence relating to PCT. It's all there on the web sites and the books. But frankly, I don't think you are speaking in good faith.

···

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

31

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.10.1525 UT)]

[From Richard Kennaway (2010.02.10.1501 GMT)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.10.1440 UT)]
There are two types of stories. Stories that can be called into doubt by evidence, and stories that cannot be called into doubt by evidence. If you want to be taken seriously it would seem to me that the onus falls on those who make the claim rather than on those who are skeptical. Consider the follow example.

I am familiar with these concepts.

Good.

But if you want to claim that PCT is an undisprovable quasi-religious faith you wil have to bring to the table more than insinuations and questions you show no sign of having seriously thought about. For example, you could read the LCS volumes, Richard Marken's paper on baseball catching, and so on, which will give you plenty of empirical evidence relating to PCT. It's all there on the web sites and the books. But frankly, I don't think you are speaking in good faith.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. I'm sorry you are so unimpressed with my thinking skills, but, needless to say, you are not alone. When did I claim that PCT is an undisprovable quasi-religious faith? I simply pointed out that in order to properly understand PCT you have to accept that tracking experiments tell you everything you need to know about human behavior. That was not my claim. That was Rick Marken's claim. If you have a quarrel it is with him. Assuming, that is, that you think he has seriously thought about his claims and is speaking in good faith.

Bruce

···

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.