From {Marc Abrams (2003.11.27.1542)]
In a message dated 11/27/2004 3:24:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:
···
[Martin Taylor 2004.11.27.14.43]
No, I told you it wasn’t, before I ever started sending those messages. But >sending the messages helped me to organize my thoughts, and even you agreed >that the last one was the best. And I posted them only to people who had >expressed an interest in getting them, not to a broadcast mailing list.
Yes, my friend, and THAT is my point. We have different learning styles. I learn by throwing things out there and seeing who and what bites and I try to figure out why.
We come from two different worlds. Two worlds, with all your ‘sophistication’ and education cannot even see.
I am not saying you were wrong, or you were not smart in doing what you did. I would hardly expect anything different from you. That is your style and I have no problem with it. My point was only that your ‘rough’ drafts’ are no better than mine.
Yes, we do realize that most of the world thinks S-R is the correct fundamental >approach. And when you “define” a disturbance that way, it precludes talking >about behaviour from a PCT viewpoint.
I disagree. I think it opens up the door, not closes it. I can start a conversation and ask if you think the environment ‘causes’ behavior. If you say yes, I would then say; OK, what if I showed you that the environment doesn’t cause it, but simply influences it?
Do you still think this approach would preclude you from talking about PCT?
It’s worked wonders for me. The main problem I walk into is what I have been trying to say for the last two days and you yourself addressed.
The generality of PCT makes it almost useless in a general sense and almost impossible to apply in a specific one. What I continue to wind up with are just-so story’s that frankly can have many different interpretation of how they happened. Nothing that points specifically at the control mechanism as the focus of importance. It is not until you tear apart the tracking task do you begin to see this, but when you try to apply it to more complex tasks you wind up with just-so story’s.
I think much more progress can be made by sticking with and applying the control paradigm at a higher not lower level. I know I am in the minority in this view, but as a good salesman Martin I KNOW what my customers are looking for. I have to see if I can deliver it to them or if I have to walk away or recommend another way of getting what they want. I’m not a con artist, and I try not to sell bullshit.
Actually, I was reminding YOU that you were staking out the majority viewpoint, >a viewpoint totally incompatible with PCT. I know you have asserted that you >don’t think “majority rule” is the way to decide scientific questions, but your >writing, which is all I have to go on when trying to discover what you think, >suggests otherwise.
Martin, I was addressing the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ are arbitrary cultural constructs. Science is NOT about right or wrong. It is about WHAT IS, or at least that’s the premise.
It is VERY difficult to be a GOOD scientist when you are unwilling to explore ideas you do not ‘LIKE’ or think that one set of ‘VALUES’ is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ then another. Rick Marken for all his fluff is NO scientist. You strive to be. But it is not easy. It is very difficult not allowing your personal feelings to get in the way of ‘objectively’ looking at a situation.
‘Objectivity’ in my mind is the ability to view something from a number different angles and by looking at the DATA behind those views. The problem is that while this is taking place, your imagination, emotions, and experience are all ‘fighting’ for the limited space you have.
Marken’s approach to economics is a great example of an ideologue and not a scientist in trying to investigate a phenomenon.
>>>A "disturbance" is so named because, in the >>>engineering sense of the term, it >disturbs a >>>perception away from its reference value.HOW?
What a funny question! Could you explain what you mean by asking it?
Sure, glad you asked, THANK YOU.
I was actually responding to this; which followed what you quoted above.
This seems to contradict your initial criticism
A disturbance does not interfere with control. It does not affect the ability to control, nor does it affect the manner of control. What a disturbance >does is dynamically to affect the error value of a control system. But in no way does it interfere with control of the disturbed perception, unless it >is powerful enough to overwhelm the output mechanism of the control system.
>>I am interested in a _ONE LEVEL_ PCT model.
Aha. A hint of the model, at last. But I’m sceptical about the viability of a one->level model.
NO, its not a one level model. It’s a multilevel networked model. Martin, I am interested in interacting ECU’s. The organization and structure MUST be dictated by either function or physiology and hopefully one day both. My approach has been functional because I’m more interested in trying to understand such things as ‘value’ than I am in getting the ‘wiring’ right.
In PCT parlance; just like Powers and others have made a good case for some initial lower three levels, I believe we can ALSO play with the UPPER three. Its the middle set of ‘levels’ that are a bitch, as well as an ultimate connection between the two extremes.
Good luck, anyway. It will be a real tour de force if you pull it off.
Thanks Martin, I know that is a sincere wish and it means a lotUtter nonsense. There are at least thousand…
You were doing so well. <real big laugh>. My fault, Sorry, I used _MY_ definition of a 'perception' here _NOT_ Pct's.
No, at the level of sentence structure, it isn’t. The grammar and the use of words >conform to reasonable standards. I shouldn’t have been so >dismissive as to >suggest it wasn’t English, and I apologise for that. I should have left the insults to >you, as being your special interest.
Thank you for the apology, but you are not above the personal insult when it suits your purposes. I do not have an exclusive on CSGnet for insults.
The problem of “extraction” is to try to get the technical sense out of the screeds >of emotional and personal material. Once one does that, which is the hard job I >referred to, understanding what you say technically is often quite illuminating.
Interesting. Sort of like trying to understand human behavior using PCT and not acknowledging that emotions and imagination play a huge role in how we perceive (my definition) the world, construct those perceptions or thoughts if you prefer, and how we interact in it. Martin, you cannot understand human behavior as a whole by looking at the pieces. You might be able to look at the pieces and understand them, but human behavior is the sum of it all.
If you remember, several people, including me, have tried hard for a long time to >get you to go deeper into your ideas than you have been willing to do.
Martin, this is not true. Why do you think I am pounding away now? Why do you think I asked for the economic questions?
Why do you think I’ve been trying to get Rick to think about different ways of talking about PCT?
On ECAC’s when I came back and went to the economic thread and saw you post on ‘values’ I agreed with and found it to be wonderful and insightful and fully in line with where I was going. I posted as such and got nothing back.
Apparently the thread had already run its course. I don’t think you were ignoring me.
Does anything I say on the ‘selling’ of PCT make any sense to anyone reading this? Does it matter to anyone else?
We have done that because the hints you give are often very tantalizing.
WHERE? WHEN? What ‘tantalizing’ ideas do you think I have? I don’t have a clue. I’ve only been told I can’t write and I don’t know PCT, Control, or anything else I post about
They suggest that there is probably something real behind them. It’s very >frustrating to think that, and to be denied for months and years a look at what >that “something real” might be. I think most of us have more or less given up >hope. But, as Rick says, if you ever let us know your real technical thoughts, >we’ll be open to trying to understand and to offer substantive critiques that might >help you to develop them.
Really? Lets see how the economics thread goes. What are your ideas on ‘price’ from a PCT perspective?
As with my ancient history sequence, writing more about something often helps >clarify the ideas, and if people criticize, those criticisms give one an opportunity >to revisit the background to see whether the ideas might be right or wrong.
Telling me I have a big ego doesn’t qualify as a critique that would help me revise >questionable ideas.
No, its a value judgment I made about you, JUST like the one you made about ME and my ‘chauvinistic’ views.
If you can dish it my friend, you gotta be able to take it. Your insults might be fancier, mine are more blunt. That sorta reflects who we are as people.
Telling me that the decorations on Maltese Megaliths differ from the Vinca in >some general characteristic would qualify as such a critique, were you to make >such an observation. It would be a critique whose validity could be addressed by >reference to the data, or to the method of analysis, rather than by reference to >the personality of the observer.
Unfortunately Martin human behavior is not so cut and dry. Imagination and emotion play in huge part in why we do what we do and why we WANT to do what we do. You can’t ‘cut out’ either one WITHOUT eliminating what makes us human. Until PCT can show HOW this all happens it’s just a nice little just-so story machine.
Hasn’t this thread exposed you to any of this? Of course you ‘react’ emotionally to any disturbances. We all do. The only way to eliminate them is the Bill Powers method. Don’t ever expose yourself to any of it. His ‘avoidance’ technique is probably more useful then his 'level technique
I had initially intended not to respond. You’ll note that I didn’t respond to your >chauvinistic views on modern history, and I won’t. I’ll try to follow your advice in >future, and make no further responses to your postings (at least until you present >something substantive that relates to perceptual control.
I’m glad you did respond. Sometimes it takes awhile and a few bumps and bruises to work through some issues. I hope these last few days has given you a little better insight into me as a person. I know I feel I know you a bit better. I think we may be on our way to doing just that, at least I hope so. I value your opinion, insight and seek you council, even with your big ego . I think you are forthright and honest, I believe I can work with you.
I don’t make idle promises. My health has been an issue for close to 8 years now. (God, I can’t believe its been that long.) I work as hard and long as I can. The model WILL be done and as I told Rick, I really do believe it will happen in the next 30 -60 days
I posed an ‘economic’ question to Rick and I posed one to you.
Lets see how ‘interested’ you guys are in my ideas
Marc