[From Rick Marken (980213.2030)]
Bruce Abbott (980213.2000 EST) --
Then why can't I get you to answer the simple question about
system equations which I posed for you?
Because you won't tell me what the question is. But whatever
it is, I'm sure Bill Powers (980213.1400 MST) has answered
it to your satisfaction.
These debates are conducted at http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
Here you only resort to polemical tricks: misdirection,
misrepresenation, ad hominum argumentation, character assination,
I do all that in the demos? Maybe there is something to the Java
Anyway, I'm sorry if I have said anything that you consider a
personal attack. I do get frustrated but I hope I haven't
attacked your character. You may be useless to PCT but I'm
sure you're a terrific person otherwise.
Your debates seem to consist mainly of words supported by rumor
You may not agree with my conclusions, but I always provide
arguments to support them, and empirical evidence when I
am aware of it.
You are correct. My "rumor and innuendo" comment was innappropriate.
I guess I was reacting to the fact that the empirical evidence you
provide is what I consider to be rumor since it is based on research
that doesn't involve any Test to determine what perception is under
control. And your recent tirade about my failure to answer your
"simple question" sounds to me like an attempt to imply that I am
evading some crucial point when, in fact, I've told you several
times that I don't know what the question is.
I should have said that your debates consist mainly of questionable
evidence and Starr chamber interrogation techniques.
You don't even fully understand the implications of the system
equations from which emerges the behavioral illusion. If you did,
you wouldn't be asserting like a damned ignorant fool that
nothing about the organism can be learned from psychophysical
experiments. What a crock!
It would really help a lot if you would explain the true
implications of the system equations from which emerges the
behavioral illusion because I'm not the only damned ignorant
fool here who things that you can learn nothing (less than nothing,
actually, since you actually think that you _are_ learning
something) about the organism from _conventional_ psychophysical
experiments (note that Bill and I have explained that you can
learn plenty from psychophysical experiments aimed at testing
to determine the perception that is controlled; such an experiment
is not a conventional psychophysical experiment).
Me (completely losing my tact) --
After 3+ years on this net you have contributed almost nothing
to the development of PCT science in terms of observation
Still beats your contribution over the past 3+ years, hands down.
I deserve that;-)
The behavioral illusion does not apply to the test conditions I
described, and you have not been able to argue otherwise.
That's because I don't know what test conditions you are talking
about. If the Test conditions you described constituted a Test
for the controlled variable, then I agree that the behavioral
illusion does not apply.
At least I don't cloak unsupportable opinion as "implications"
of PCT and then claim that opposition to that opinion is
opposition to PCT.
What unsupportable opinion did I say was an implication of PCT?
The behavioral illusion? If so, what was the unsupportable
opinion part? That experiments (such as conventional psychophysical
experiments) run without any Test to determine the perception under
control tell us nothing about the subject? If so, why do you
consider this opinoin "unsupportable"?
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: email@example.com