[From Bill Williams UMKC 27 September 2002 ]
Rick Marken:
When distrubances exceed the output capablities of the control system, the
system experiences error this is unquestionablely _not_ of its chosing.
I think your proposition _is_ not only questionable but false. The system can
shut off, or commit suicide, thus limiting the error experienced. So, it seems
consistent to me to assert that fundamentally when one experiences error, that
the error is experienced _because_ a choice has been made to experience it. The
option which is always availible is to commit suicide. Sarte has some stuff
to say about this, but the proposition seems clear cut to me-- the errors we
experience are a part of what we choose to experience.
I suppose I am _knowingly_ hurting them but its not really intensional.
For you the goal of "hurting the idea" outweights your anticipation that what
you say will hurt people-- which you say is a "side effect." If avoiding
hurting people were more important to you than hurting ideas then you wouldn't
attack the ideas. So, ideas are more important to you than people? I doubt
however whether ideas have control systems or experience pain. Maybe I'm making
too much of it, but its an interesting sentence.
They can see that I am the source of this pain..."
Its picky of me but the way you say this is misleading. They don't actually
see the source of their pain. Its more proper I am convinced to say that They
infer, or speculate, or scapegoat you as being the source of their pain.
If I were more effective at presenting the case for PCT I might have more
cognitive and S-R psychologists hating me.."
Now those folks have some excuse. But, I don't think PCT people ought to be
thinking this way.
This "hatred" thing is a problem in all intellectual (including political)
debates.
Only I think if the debate is regarded as a zero sum game.
The only solutions to this problem that I can see are to stop arguing against
the idea or to argue less effectively.
I think the alternative solutions only become apparent when the concept of what
the problem is shifts.
What I object to is people acting on their hatred by attacking me personally.
I can see why you would object, but why should they care?
But I can control the pain in this case; I just switch off the news.
There you go.
BW: Rick makes a distinction in how animate and in-animate environments are to
be considered.
How would a system know the difference? All it "sees" are perceptual signals.
If only they would.. then "...we could all get along much better personally."
Where ranked against the battle of ideas do you rank this goal of getting along
personally?
This is written hurriedly, I hope there aren't grotesque errors, if there are
errors I'll readily retract mistatements.
Cordially yours
Bill Williams
ยทยทยท
______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/