From [Marc Abrams (2005.02.15.0453)]
Martin Taylor, yesterday in a post said I was either trying to provoke, or I was naive. I believe Martin thought I was simply looking to irritate, and that was not the case. Provoke, as in provoking some thoughts on a subject, yes. But not, necessarily to irritate. I think Martin thought I was asking a question that I knew could not be answered, but that was not the case.
I believe there is an answer and here is what I think it is.
I don’t believe we can ever, or at least in our lifetime’s, develop a unified theory of human behavior and cognition. At least not a SINGULAR version. Even the study of physics, although having broadly agreed upon conventions or laws; in specific details, understandings will differ among physicists. It can be no different for anything else.
Even mathematics, which provides us with the closest thing to certainty we have been able to muster, is not fully certain. Paradox’s and dilemma’s exist in mathematics and if you ask any mathematician, any analogies we make between mathematics and the real world we do at our own peril.
That is not to say that math has not served us well. Physics could not and would not exist without it. We just need to understand that math and the real world and its connection to it is still only an analogy. It is NOT the reality. It only represents certain properties of it. Properties we have found useful for our needs.
With all this in mind, having a single theory of human behavior is highly improbable. Can we all agree on the ‘importance’ of any one thing? In fact can we all agree on what ‘importance’ actually means to each of us and do we all apply the use of the word consistently?
Much research say’s no.
Mathematics and it’s associated logic cannot tell you whether some entity does or does not have certain properties. For math to be an effective tool you MUST already have a set of axioms or truths from which to work. That is, you must know that certain properties do in fact exist in an entity, and in what ‘quantity’.
These basic ‘truths’ must be accepted by all who use them as a basis for a common understanding and acceptance.
These axioms or truths themselves cannot be proven. They must be accepted on faith. What kinds of evidence we each require to validate our own ‘truths’ will vary, with the one constant, that certainty in the real world is unattainable.
Each of us will have varying degree’s of trust in anything we each believe. I don’t believe it could be any other way, so each of us will ultimately have our own ‘truths’ that we each walk around with. Some may be very similar to each others but none will be identical, and to think so I believe is Orwellian.
PCT, IS Powers’ control theory, and it could be no other way. I do NOT believe this to be a negative. I just don’t believe it can be any other way.
IF this is so, then denying others the ability to find and explore their own truths, will disenfranchise all those unwilling to accept your truths for themselves. ESPECIALLY when you make it known that their set of truths will not be tolerated, accepted, or explored.
This leaves you with a list of 96 and counting DOWN, with little hope of gaining new adherents willing to supplant their beliefs for yours.
THIS being the ultimate in a tracking task, and someone who is willing to take on the ‘reference’ and task of following the dancing cursor.
regards,
Marc