[From Rick Marken (2004.07.16.1130)]
Bill Williams (15 July 2004 6:20 PM CST)
Rick Marken (2004.07.15.0830)--
I think "equivocation" is the latest
in a long line of slogans that have been developed as a way to
challenge PCT by those who can't challenge it using modeling or
experimentation.How would one go about challeging solipcism using "modeling or
experiemntation?"
Bill Powers has explained how this is done in several posts. I don't want to
waste the time trying to find them since they seem to be of no interest to
you anyway. The short answer, for what it's worth, is as follows:
experimentation shows that there are consistent constraints on our ability
to produce intended perceptions and modeling shows that these constraints
are external to ourselves and, thus, represent a reality independent of
ourselves.
The equivocation is the confusion created when it is claimed that control
theory and PCT are the same thing.
I thought it was the equivocation about whether the CV was a perceptual or
an environmental variable. It seems to me that you are equivocating about
what we are equivocating about. Anyway, there is no equivocating about
whether or not PCT is control theory. PCT is precisely control theory (in
terms of the basic equations of closed loop negative feedback organizations
of variables and functions). PCT simply maps control theory onto behavior
differently than do other applications of control theory to behavior.
My interest is primarily economics.PCT economics has assumed the guise of Bill
Powers' dad's Leakages thesis. We've had your "giant leap in tbe wrong
direction."
Well, at least I tried. The main problem with the model was that the
composite producer/consumer controlled for GNP (PQ) rather than for goods
and services alone (Q). Given what I've seen of your programming and
mathematical abilities I doubt that your evaluation of the model is based on
any understanding it, which is why you can only parrot (partially) one of
Bill Powers' comments.
We've had your "noble" effort published under my name where you
demonstrated that you didn't understand the Giffen model.
I did make a mistake by saying that increasing the budget would lead to
decreased demand for the "inferior" good with increased price. In fact,
increasing the budget just eliminates the Giffen effect (increased demand
with increased price), as can be seen in my demo of the Giffen effect at
http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Economics.html. The point I was
trying to make in your paper was simply that the control model could account
for _both_ the conventional, downward sloping demand curve (decrease in
demand with increase in price) and the "aberrant", upward sloping demand
curve of the Giffen effect. Which it can. I thought it was important for
you to point that out in the paper. I should have asked you to make that
revision yourself. But there were time constraints (and no e-mail at the
time) but I know that I did get your permission to make what I considered to
be the needed editorial changes. I'm sorry that one of those changes was
not stated as you would have stated it.
We've had Bill Powers' claim that "it isn't going to cost anything send
people to Mars."
That was not Bill's claim. His claim was that going to Mars would not cost
_the economy_ anything, where the economy is a collection of individuals
who produce the goods and services they consume. The economy can be
measured in terms of the total output produced by this collection of
producer/ consumers; this measure is called GDP and it's measured in
dollars. The dollars that are used to pay for the Mars program comes from
the governmental segment of the economy, which gets its dollars from the
producer/consumers that pay taxes. The government simply transfers these
dollars from one segment of the economy (one set of producer/ consumers) to
another. There is no change in the total dollars in the economy; GDP doesn't
change when the government does this. So the Mars program transfers dollars
from one segment of the economy -- taxpayers -- to another -- yhr
producer/consumers working on the Mars program, who are taxpayers
themselves. This transfer costs the economy nothing in the sense that GDP
does not change. The transfer simply _redistributes_ GDP from one set of
individuals to another. Of course, the Mars program will "cost" the economy
the ability to spend what is spent on the Mars program on something else.
If the mars program takes $10 billion of GDP each year, then that's $10
billion that cannot be spent on other things. That is a cost to the economy
-- but it's a resource allocation cost, not a dollar cost.
And, then the aspiration to develop an economic test bed which was taken
up, played with for a bit and then abandoned.
My own work on economics continues, but it certainly takes a backseat to my
other work. I'm sure Bill Powers will continue working on the testbed. But
I think he was hoping to be able to team up with a "real" economist, which
you are, at least by credential. I imagine that the work on the testbed has
been slowed by his disappointment over the way things have gone with you.
PCT seems to be on its way to becoming another episode in what Horgan
describes as "the catastrophy of cybernetics."
Let's hope so, for your sake.
Bill Powers used to talk about
the dangers involved when the "lunatic fringe" appeared. If I had been a bit
more perceptive, I might have recognized that the "lunatic" element was
present from the very beginning.
I think your problem was not so much lack of perceptiveness as lack of a
mirror.
Regards
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400