it seems that you are another one who reads what he wants and make some"paraphrasing" based on pure imagination which has nothing in common with what Bruce Nevin wrote. I really don’t understand “what version of English permits that interpretation”. It’s probably Martins’ private (imaginational) version. Â
HB : But if I’m honest I can assume what was the real purpose of your writings. We know each other quite a long time. Sorry I’ll be quite long this time considering that this could be our last communication.
I tried to read your message as far as possible scientifically but there was nothing what could be even close to what is science by your opinion. So it seems that you didn’t contribute anything to PCT and I’ll rather not talk about your contribution to understanding how organisms function. So this time it seems that you went “under bottom”. You told exactly nothing, and you didn’t only inuslt me, there is much more in your message.
MT : Boris, you usually get angry and say they have deliberately insulted you if someone suggests that your control of English is less than perfect, but I will risk it this time, because in one message it has led you to defame both Rick and Bruce.
HB : I don’t understand what you were reading but this time you are out of line of the real problem of conversation. Does demanding scientific evidences means defaming for you ? Well I could say that you are defaming me.Â
However I turn your writings I came to the same conclussion. You “crossed the line”.
Neither Bruce nor Alison suggested that my control of English is “less than perfect” or whatever. As far as problem of “suggesting” that I don’t understand English is concerned is limited to only 4 persons on CSGnet. You are among them. So if you don’t understand what I’m writing don’t read. But whatever you 4 persons were writing back it was obviuosly that you perfectly understood what I was writing. The problem is most probable in your LCS nature not in my writings. It’s not that I “don’t understand English”, but it’s about that you don’t understand PCT and of course you don’t understand how organisms function. Let us remember what basically PCT is about.
HB : Correct me if I understood wrong (it seems that you did). I understand that PCT is general theory which is trying to search and research and find out how organisms (LCS) function. Did I get it ? Or did you get it ? PCT is among many theories that is trying to do the same thing. Understand how organisms function. And I think PCT did it great. Although we could add some upgrades.
LCS usually try to find ways to achieve goals. And of course instead of searching for real arguments for ex. about how organisms function (so to make some progress), people recourse to all kind of other means so that they can achieve goals. Probably this is why common sense took place with simple thought : “means justify goals”.
Probably all “killer absolutists” used that including Hitler. I wanted to say that usually people choose their means of achieving golas so to survive or live better. They use also other people for that. And I assume that you feel better after using such means of insulting me. Enjoy.
HB : I usually feel insulted if somebody tries to achieve goals in the way of “attacking somebody” or “minimizing somebody’s authority” or minimizing somebody’s understanding with statements which are directed to their personalities instead of supporting statements with scientific arguments. I admitt that I’m using both of them but with “chosen members”.
The problem is that you didn’t support your writings with any scientific arguments just full mouth of phylosophing.
I hope you understand what I’m writing about in some “version of English” ? If you don’t, ask ?
MT : I cannot understand what version of English permits that interpretation.
HB : Well Martin it was sometimes really nice talking to you. But this is where our “friendship” ends. You are trying to make “language idiot” of me by implying that I don’t understand any “version of English or American” or whatever. So you are probably aiming at that I don’t understand what anybody of you is writing including Bill. What do you think vocabularies are for ?
I think that understanding between people spring from their wilingness to understand each other. But of course people can also deliberatelly avoid understanding others. Like you are doing this time.
I think that you deliberatelly wrote what you wrote about my understanding of English with precise purpose. I beleive I know you that much. You are highly inteligent person, so as much as I know you, you always write with some well considered or well weighed or thoughtful reason.
But I’m surprised that so many of you read what I wrote. Even Rick read it although he claimed that he is not reading my posts anymore.
HB earlier: it seems that you are trying all the time to prove that I don’t know something or that Bills’ PCT is not good enough authority about PCT…or better about how orrganisms function. I’ll consider your insinuations without any arguments as insult to me and Bill Powers.
HB : Converstaion between me and Bruce Nevin (although he is avoinding adressing his posts) was about lack of evidences Bruce and Alison offered to support their statements that Bill is not enough authority for PCT but there is some “great deal” of something that suplement PCT so to make PCT a science. And I demanded evidences which I didn’t get. Do you understand Martin where was the main problem of conversation between me and Bruce Nevin ? And you solved exactly nothing. Stil there is no evidence that what Bruce Nevin was talking about “great deal of something” has some real basis.
HB : But I’m used to your role of playing ignorant wondering what was written or you try with other kind of ignorancy as means to achieve your goals. It happened quite some times in our conversations. It’s one of your ways of achieving goals. So I think I know what your real intentions could be. But you never know for sure because people don’t control outside but inside. From outside is many times hard to “see” what people really control. And we usually can’t see inside people, can we ?
HB : If I’m honest I’m used to some more sophisticated level of discussion from you. If you want to understand my English or American or whatever you’ll do. This can be clearly see from our past conversations and from conversation on ECACS. You even asked me for permission to keep my discourse about school system. Remember ? Why would you do that if you didn’t understand which verion of English I’m using.
And you wanted to visit me in Slovenia, probably to get what you wanted. If I’m so bad in any “verion of English” which you could understand why you tryed to visit me ? How could we communicate, if you don’t understand my “version” of whatever ? With our hands.
HB : So I don’t think that language is a problem in our communication. You probably just have to choose one mean to “attack” me. And as there were no others I assume you chose language. Of course with no scientific arguments that could support your insinuations.
I think that your discussion is marginal this time. Just writing something because of writing.
I wrote there are many possible meanings of Bruces’ quote and I chose some meanings. If you don’t understand (or you don’t wan’t to understand my meaning) it’s your problem. It’s just your interpretation. It’s not the only right interpretation.
···
From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:09 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Please help ID important CSGnet threads
[Martin Taylor 2019.06.04.16.31]
Replying to: On 2019/06/3 1:10 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote
HB : I’ll jump first to “case 2”.
Case 2: “BN : If your only authority is what Bill has said in print, you’re missing a great deal of what makes PCT a science rather than a dogmatic philosophy.” “HB : This statement could possiblly be understood in many meanings but it’s hard to overlook a meaning that beside what Bill wrote about PCT there is a great deal of some “other science” that "makes PCT a science”.
MT : I cannot understand what version of English permits that interpretation.
HB : You are probably not English 
. How could you understand any version of English if you are not from there ??? Check if you are on right Planet ? Did you try with American-Canadian vocabulary ? If I understand right you are not expert for language of any kind.
The most probable reason why you don’t understand “version of English”, is probably because you are Canadian. Take vocabulary and find out which “version of English” I’m talking about ? You can try also with English-Slovene or American-Slovene or Canadian-Slovene vocabulary, but it wouldn’ probably be of any use to you for understanding which “version” of Slovene I’m transforming into English. But maybe you could ask experts for such languages take care of vocabularies and they would probably answer you which “version of English” I’m talking about.
You can not understand many things about how organisms function and of course what PCT is. But that is not because of "version"of language, but because you lack of necesary knowledge to understand that. Interpretation about how organisms function has nothing to do with “version of English” but with understanding science (which no matter of used labnguage) enable understanding of how organisms function and of course understanding of PCT.Â
My personal oppinion is that you have two critical “holes” in your understanding of PCT. Shall we talk about possible number of “holes” you have about uinderstanding how organisms function ??? I’ll say at least 3, but considering what you wrote about electric shock I would risk it (like you) and guess that you have no clue what could be happening inside organism (nervous system).
MT earlier : Are you asking what is he difference between an electric shock and the amount of salt in a bucket of water? It sounds like that?
MT earlier : I don’ know how to answer such a question.
HB : You don’t know to answer such a question because you don’t understand how organisms function.
Interpretation of Bruce Nevin’s first part :
BN :Â If your only authority is what Bill has said in print
HB : …has a little to do with your underrstanding of my “verion of English” but mostly it has to do with how I understand PCT. It’s probably because I citate Bill so much as he is authority for PCT. Do you have any other explanation ?
Maybe you don’t understand why I have Bill for only authority about PCT and why I want to understand PCT as close as possible as he did ? Becuase he is the author and I’m quite sure that he knew what he was writing about. Do you ?  Â
MT : Nor can I find any plausible meanings to what Bruce said other than than a paraphrase that goes something like this: "The only authority recognized by science is Nature*.*
HB : Where did you get that meaning from Bruce’s statements ??? Your “paraphrasing” is obviously perfect twist of Bruce Nevin words. Where did you find the term Nature or that sicence has anything to do with Nature in his statement ? Where did Bruce Nevin make that connection ???
The only explanation I get from your “version of English” is that you added meaning from your imagination ? Your paraphrasing means that you must be good at reading Bruce Nevins thoughts. Another “Occultist” or “Telepat”??? As far as I can see what you wrote has nothing to do with what he wrote. Let us see again what Bruce Nevin wrote :
"BN : If your only authority is what Bill has said in print, you’re missing a great deal of what makes PCT a science rather than a dogmatic philosophy
HB : So where is the meaning in Bruces’ statement that science is recognizing the Nature for only authority ? A “great deal of” something ??? The point was (if you read my post in whole, not only what you wanted to read) that Bruce Nevin has to prove that a “great deal” of something is making PCT a science. Or better. He has to prove that “great deal” of something has to do something with science and Nature. He didn’t offer any proofs till now ? So do you understand finally what the problem was about ?
We are investigating what could be “great deal” of something what I’m missing (beside Bills PCT) that could mean something what makes “PCT a science” ? So we have to find out whether “great deal” which I’m missing has something to do with science (Nature). Bruce Nevin didn’t offer any evidence that “great deal” means something connected to science. And you concluded that he is talking about science as NATURE… ??? From where ? Did Bruce Nevin send you any evidennces that “great deal” could mean “science is NATURE” ??? Â
BN : …you’re missing a great deal of what makess PCT a science
HB : So where is that “great deal” of something that makes PCT a science ???
It seems that you can’t find any plausible meaning because your are not reading what is written, but you are reading and writing what you want to read and write, with your imagination. Only plausible meaning for “great deal” I’m missing is a “great deal” of nothing that makes PCT a science, because I didn’t see any evidences. Or at least you didn’t show anything,
What and where we can find that “great deal” that is supplementing PCT as a science ?
MT : Books may tell what their authors understood by asking Nature, but nobody, however much of a genius they may be, has asked all possible questions of Nature.
HB : Where did you go now ? All this you see from Bruce Nevins’ statements ??? How ??? You must be “superman” with “laser vision”. Where exactly do you see that he was talking about NATURE and all possible questions of Nature ??? Where are evidences for that ? Oh maybe you think that it’s about big Martin who’s word is synonim for the only truth.Â
Again. It was not the problem in understanding Nature, but whether a “great deal” of something makes PCT a science or not. To the problem how much PCT fits NATURE we’ll talk in another step when Bruce Nevin will show something. Bruce Nevin should provide evidences for his statement but he didn’t. How a “great deal” of something supplement Bills’ PCT ? And where can we find that ?
Discussion between me and Bruce Nevin and Alison was about establishing if “great deal” of something that makes “PCT science” makes any sense or not. They didn’t show any evidences and neither did you that “great deal” beside original PCT makes “PCT science”. You are just phylosophing.
MT : To rely only on what someone says in print or verbally divorces you from science.
HB : Do I understand right that what you are saying is that what Bill says in print is “divorcing” me from science ??? Or generally, Do you think that if people rely on what someone says in print or verbally is divorcing people from science ? Is that what you are saying ??? So whatever generally people say in print or verbally divorces other people from science ? From which Planet are you ?
Because if this is true then Bill who relyed on what someone says in print (for ex. Ashby, neurophysiology) divorced Bill Powers from science ??? Did you read what you were writing ?
What it is than a science ? If you write or talk about scientific experiments which other did and “said it in print” with scientific results, that is not a science ??? What is than a science ? How will you proceed scientifc knowledge to others if not with saying in print or verbally ? With Telelpathy ???
If I understand right then everything what Bill wrote is worthless because “what Bill Powers says in print” divorces me or anybody from science ???
Or you are talking about “some science” and we don’t know of what origin is your science ??? Phylosophical ? Did you make all scientific experiments for what you are talking about or you are writing about by yourself '?? Or did you use also scientific literature…??? HHow experiences about scientific experiments are “transffered” into society ??? I assume that when you finished your PhD studies mentor or other members probably adviced you to write about your work “in print”(articles, maybe books) to inform other scientists about your work or they adviced not to say it in print, because that’s something that “divorces others from science” ??? How else could you inform anybody if not by saying or explaining to them or “in print” ? With Telephaty ?
MT : PCT is a science precisely because the scientific exploration of its implications does NOT relay on what Bill wrote as more than a guide as to what to expect to find when you explore."
HB : And on what scientific explorations of implications of PCT rely on ? On Friston ? Come on Martin. Dont’ talk nonsense. You have to read PCT and match “explorations” to PCT so to understand what is PCT and whether is right about how organisms function or not. If PCT has some scientific content it will match to understanding of other scientist how organisms function which can be seen by all.
How you’ll know that you are talking about PCT as a science if not by relaying on what Bill wrote or verbaly transfer to others ???
PCT is a science because Bill used also many scientific evidences about how organisms function, not just phylosophing like you, Bruce Nevin and Rick are doing.
We have to understand that all the time we are talking about PCT as a theory of organisms functioning (the subject or our search and research) and by that we also explore whether Bill was right or not. You are obviously saying that Bill was not right and you offer Friston probably “in print”. Friston too has to know much about how organisms function probably by relying on what was written or verbalized in physiological and neurophysiological circles and of course he probably rely on his experiences. But this doesn’t mean that relying on what was “in print” and verbal scientific discussion “divorced” him from science. How did he finnished his studies if not by using what others said “in print” and verbally ?
You rely on Friston, why ? Because what you read in print from him “divorces” you from science ? He is obviuously writing about science if he is neurophysiologist. And he is right in some points. And I think that Friston and PCT go quite well toghether… as far as I understand both of them.Â
How will you know that implications of PCT are PCT explorations if you are not relying on what Bill wrote ? PCT itself has so many scientific explorations incorporated in it’s “theoretical body” that we can really talk about science.
So where Bruce Nevin’s “great deal” of something can be incorporated into PCT and show some PCT science or how organisms function, so that we can say that I’m missing a great deal of PCT as a science ?
Do you know for any other kind of scientific sources of information about PCT today but Bills’ written sources ??? You and Rick are obviously relying on Bills sources “in print” (your last discussion).Â
Bill Powers has to rely on some scientific literature (experiments done by others) or on his experiments to form PCT ? I think that Ashby’s book was cruical for his exploration about how organisms function and neurophysiology he used…. etc.
PCT is not only a guide. Bill wrote about firm “facts” (scientific literature) which can be proved in practical experiments (like Rick is doing behind computer) and with scientific experiments in nature (which mostly non of you are doing). So mostly PCT is reference for scientific exploration because it is itself a scientific book composed of scientific “facts”.
 That’s why Rick is all the time wrong with RCT as he was using PCT as a guide not as precise ground for “scientific exploration”. So the result he made was his phylosophy about how organisms function. Â
I think that problem is in interpretation of results of Rick’s experiments ?
I think that Rick is making wrong interpretations of his “experiments”, because he does not understand PCT, so he can’t confirm that results of his experiments are plausible with PCT and with how organisms function. He clearly showed that his analysis of " racquetball game" was wrong, because he was not “guided” by PCT principles and physiological but with his psychological. Game was analysed from a view point of psychologist and of course his interpretation of what is happening when he is playing is wrong.
He can’t explain right what is really happening for example in his “forehand” movement. Nobody can perceive “forehand” movement as a whole perception inside. Only observer conditionally can. But observer is not the “who shot the ball”. He can make better or worse interpretation what happend like thousands of observers on football game who “exactly know” what player should do in specific playing situation. It’s bla,bla, bla… They are not in players skinn to “experience” perceptions in that situation.
But I’m interested where are your “precise scientific exploration of implications of PCT” ??? Are you exploring behind computer (your picture on internet) like Rick and probably Bruce Nevin are doing. Are there any great exploration of PCT that you, Rick or Bruce Nevin could show being guided by PCT ??? Phylospohy which I see you, Rick and Bruce Nevin are producing has a little to do with what you are talking about NATURE. Show me evidences ?
I’m asking all the time that Bruce Nevin should show something what could resemble to “scientific explorations of implications about PCT” but he showed nothing. One, big ZERO. And you are phylosophing too, showing one big ZERO at the moment.
Any “specific precise scientific implication of PCT” can rely only on Bill literature and match experiments to his theoretical background (which is supported by science), because we don’t have any other sources of evidences for PCT. PCT is science because Bill used scientific literature which is written in his literature and we can match what he wrote with other scientific literature or experiments that will confirm of deny PCT as a science.
MT : I suppose this means to you that I understand neither PCT nor the English language,
HB : The probable cause that you don’t understand the main point of PCT (but you did understand couple times) is lack of some specialized knowledge and you are too frequently changing your mind.
Your understanding of English probably has something to do with whether you play role of ignorant or not. And we know that you can read what you want in any version of English you want. You showed that perfectly in our past conversations.
MT : …and you might be right.
HB : I know I’m not right, because however good I know you, I know that I’ll never “see through” you knowing what real intentions of your writings were. But I know that you can write extremely good about PCT. I don’t know why all these charade was necessary. Â
MT : But I do not intend to insult you by writing this message.
HB : Well Martin. You did what you did. It’s final. Read again what you wrote :
MT earlier : Boris, you usually get angry and say they have deliberately insulted you if someone suggests that your control of English is less than perfect, but I will risk it this time,
HB : You did it purposefully. You risk it this time. There is no way back. You should have thought of consequences of your acts, before you did it. You have a great mind but you sometimes use it in wrong direction. You didn’t only insulted me you tried to humiliate me. And that’s sure what I’ll not forget.
HB : Now case 1.
Case 1:
HB earlier : “Speccially Ricks contributions are worthless as he admitted that 40 years he wrongly understood PCT. "So we could say that 40 years he wrote nonsense,…”
MT : Here, the problem is that Rick provided the context necessary to distinguish between “40 years ago” and “for 40 years”, by providing a link to some 1980 correspondence as well as a photocopy of part of the link in question. So we can be sure that Rick meant “40 years ago”.
HB : Sorry I don’t understand your “paraphrasing” of Ricks words :
RM : But now, 40 years later, I finally understand what Bill was talking about;…I wish I had been able to understand this back then.
HB : It’s clear that 40 years later Rick finally understand what Bill was talking about and that he wish that he had been able to understand that 40 years ago. What’s not clear here ?
Whether is “40 years ago” that he didn’t understand" or “for 40 years” that he didn’t understand is the same in the Ricks’ context. He didn’t understand before 40 years what Bill was talking about and important is that now 40 later he understands what Bill was talking about back then.
Do you understand his “version of English” ? It’s clear that 40 years he didn’t understand.
Also important is that you criticized Rick for his misunderstanding of PCT and I cirticized him through his nonsence talkings about what “PCT says”. It’s about 12 statements Rick produced what makes him World Champion in talking nonsense. You can find them in CSGnet archives. Bruce Nevin says that everything is there.
HB : I don’t understand what you wanted to say bellow so I’ll pass. Whatever Rick understood in that time it’s not relevant, because he understood Bill 40 years later. He thinks that he understands now – conditionally, but I think that he still don’t understand the essence of PCT as probably in this moment you don’t. But you are changing your mind quite often.
Boris
MT : But at the same time, he [Rick Marken 2019-05-27_12:56:59] brought up an issue that, so far as I can remember, has not been discussed on CSGnet – the role of noise in the control loop. Bill did mention it in B:CP, when he defined the concept of “Neural Current” as the sum of the firings of a bunch of neurons over some sliding window of time. He noted that the neural current was inherently noisy, but the results of analyses using neural current as an analogue model of non-uniform impulse rates ought to give results within perhaps 10% of what would be found with a more detailed analysis. Rick said in the recent message that he had thought his original proposal – " I had to add “noise” to have the model perform like the subjects in my experiments – …was cheating, in a way." It wasn’t cheating. It was a necessary consequence of using “neural current” in the analysis.
I disagree with Rick’s new understanding of what Bill was saying, though I stand to be corrected, because Rick could easily be right about what Bill meant – “I finally understand what Bill was talking about; the source of noise is slight variations in the reference signal that exist even when you try to maintain a fixed reference signal.”, and the two noise sources might both work together.
Boris
Martin
