[From John Kirkland (2017.05.23.0830 NZT)]
Surely somebody may be able to provide a PCT exegesis on this article?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opinion/donald-trump-our-ai-president.html?mwrsm=Email
Phun time…
Cheers
I think so. More tomorrow.
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance”
···
Sent from my iPad
On May 22, 2017, at 4:40 PM, John Kirkland johnkirkland@gmail.com wrote:
[From John Kirkland (2017.05.23.0830 NZT)]
Surely somebody may be able to provide a PCT exegesis on this article?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opinion/donald-trump-our-ai-president.html?mwrsm=Email
Phun time…
Cheers
[From John Kirkland (2017.05.25.11:15 NZT)]
When I read the NYT article it pointed towards the possibility of this being a lever for advancing PCT to a wider audience.
Many professional and lay psychologists appear to be caught in a R-S illusion. That is, they try to find an explanation for what’s observed as behaviour. As the NYT author notes there are many “explanations” being brandished around; attempts to find the “S”. For anybody adopting an open-loop approach this is quite reasonable.
Where am I going with this? One of the BIG ideas I gleaned from Bill’s writing is that PCT is neutral. (It’s not to say he wasn’t a moral man with ethical commitments, about which there are numerous confirmatory pointers.) I’m fascinated by what tends to get in the way of these main-stream open-loop attempts to seek out the generating source, the well-spring for what appear to be outlandish statements. If we could disregard most commentaries and adopt a PCT perspective (that closed-loop systems are neutral), then I have a suggestion as to this illusion’s maintenance. What’s getting in the way is a mish-mash of personality, ethics, morality and intelligence as well as other accoutrements (like volition). The weather has no morality, nor does the lawnmower, tides, ecoli, growing plants, or us (basically).
If we were to accept DT’s highest reference is “winning, the only game in town” then does not everything fall into place from a PCT approach? Even “alternative facts”; aren’t these right up PCT’s alley?
Look, I’m only offering a contrarian view here. Why, I ask myself, are so many people getting their knickers in a twist about DT’s antics?
I’d have thought PCT’s big guns could prepare a well-argued case, levering off the NYT article. Opportunities like this don’t arise often.
Me, alas, I don’t have the brains to do what’s needed.
Cheers,
JohnK
···
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
I think so. More tomorrow.
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance”
Sent from my iPad
On May 22, 2017, at 4:40 PM, John Kirkland johnkirkland@gmail.com wrote:
[From John Kirkland (2017.05.23.0830 NZT)]
Surely somebody may be able to provide a PCT exegesis on this article?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opinion/donald-trump-our-ai-president.html?mwrsm=Email
Phun time…
Cheers
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.25.1625)]
···
John Kirkland (2017.05.25.11:15 NZT)–
JK: When I read the NYT article it pointed towards the possibility of this being a lever for advancing PCT to a wider audience.
JK: Where am I going with this? One of the BIG ideas I gleaned from Bill’s writing is that PCT is neutral. (It’s not to say he wasn’t a moral man with ethical commitments, about which there are numerous confirmatory pointers.) I’m fascinated by what tends to get in the way of these main-stream open-loop attempts to seek out the generating source, the well-spring for what appear to be outlandish statements. If we could disregard most commentaries and adopt a PCT perspective (that closed-loop systems are neutral), then I have a suggestion as to this illusion’s maintenance. What’s getting in the way is a mish-mash of personality, ethics, morality and intelligence as well as other accoutrements (like volition). The weather has no morality, nor does the lawnmower, tides, ecoli, growing plants, or us (basically).Â
JK: If we were to accept DT’s highest reference is “winning, the only game in town” then does not everything fall into place from a PCT approach? Even “alternative facts”; aren’t these right up PCT’s alley?Â
RM: Sounds like you’re the one to write it!!Â
JK: Look, I’m only offering a contrarian view here. Why, I ask myself, are so many people getting their knickers in a twist about DT’s antics?
RM: Well my guess is it’s because 1) he has the nuclear codes and 2) he can sign legislation that will ruin the lives of millions in one fell swoop.
BestÂ
Rick
Â
I’d have thought PCT’s big guns could prepare a well-argued case, levering off the NYT article. Opportunities like this don’t arise often.
Me, alas, I don’t have the brains to do what’s needed.
Cheers,
JohnK
Â
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:
I think so. More tomorrow.
Fred Nickols, CPT
Writer & Consultant
“Assistance at a Distance”
Sent from my iPad
On May 22, 2017, at 4:40 PM, John Kirkland johnkirkland@gmail.com wrote:
[From John Kirkland (2017.05.23.0830 NZT)]
Surely somebody may be able to provide a PCT exegesis on this article?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opinion/donald-trump-our-ai-president.html?mwrsm=Email
Phun time…
Cheers