Re Net Communications

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

From [Marc Abrams (980221.1846)]

I goofed. I get the digest and assumed that Jeff's reply to my post
was the only one. I didn't realize that Mr.. Marken not only replied
but had the audacity to change the subject line :-).

Part of my original post and reply to Jeff V.

Sorry Jeff. _Rick_ was not, is not, and _never_ will be the

_cause_

of your_ perceptions. Or _ANYONE_ else's. _WE_ are responsible for
_OUR OWN_ perceptions. PERIOD.

Part of Jeff's original post
Jeff Vancouver (980220.0910 EST) --

...perceptions are derived from the inputs from the environment
into the input functions. It is true that I am "responsible"
for my input functions, but I do not think it is unreasonable to
describe the nature of the inputs into those functions which
influence the results (I.e., the perception).

Rick said:

You are both somewhat right and somewhat wrong;-)

Marc is wrong because I do have an influence on some of Jeff's
controlled perceptions; what I say is a disturbance to those
perceptions and a disturbance is an independent variable (which
is an actual causal variable) in the control equations.

Rickala. You are _assuming_ you caused a disturbance. Don't go patting
yourself on the back just yet. :slight_smile: What if you were not causing a
disturbance.What if Jeff simply has a perception of you being a
%$%^@%@$% :slight_smile: Then what? Jeff?, what do _you_ say? and if you _are_
causing a disturbance, _one_ way to deal with it is to deny the
validity ( and possibly the existence) of what someone else is saying
or doing "Denying" is something _I_ do. My point was and is _any_
influence ( btw, what do you mean by that word influence?) you _might_
have is based on _how_ _I_ perceive the world :slight_smile: not how _you_ do.
:slight_smile: as you said and I quote :slight_smile:

"we are responsible for what comes out of those input functions --
controlled perceptual variables". Am I taking this out of context? If
so, please explain.

Marc.
...

2

[From Rick Marken (980221.2030)]

Marc Abrams (980221.1846) --

Rickala. You are _assuming_ you caused a disturbance.

I think of a "disturbance" as any contribution to the variation
in a controlled perception that is independent of the outputs
of the controller. So a disturbance is not necessarily
"disturbing" (pushing the controlled perception away from its
reference state); it is just _independent_ of what the controller
does. A better name for "disturbance" might have been "independent
environmental variable" (the reference signal is the "independent
system variable").

What if you were not causing a disturbance.

I would not be causing a distrubance if I were not contributing
to a perception that Jeff was controlling. But I know that
I was contributing to a controlled perception because Jeff
reacted appropriately (to protect the perception from
disturbance) every time I said something.

What if Jeff simply has a perception of you being a %$%^@%@$% :slight_smile:

Then I am also a distrubance to that perception. How I act on
the net is an independent contributor to the degree to which I
am perceived as a %$%^@%@$%.

My point was and is _any_ influence ( btw, what do you mean by
that word influence?) you _might_ have is based on _how_ _I_
perceive the world :slight_smile: not how _you_ do.

I agree. But I would say " _how_ and _whether_ I influence
someone else's perceptions depends on how that person perceives
the world _and_ in what reference state they want that perception".

By the way, I think "influence" means "one of many simultaneous
causes of the state of a variable". It's a weaker form of "cause"
than "determine".

Best

Rickala

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/