[From Rick Marken (930513.1400)]

CHUCK TUCKER (930513.14:52)

I find it quite curious that you can find very little of
of meaning that you can make of the statements I have put

that the meanings were ambiguous -- I got more than one
meaning from many of the statements, some of which conflicted
with my image if how an autonomous, intentional system works.

yet Bill seems to understand them quite
well - in fact (a word I know you like but understand
differently than I do) I agree with all of his interpreta-
tions of my statements in PCT terms. I suggest that you
read his post of today for a restatement of my statements
in PCT terms.

OK. So you agree with:

Bill Powers (930513.0600) --

The problem with your views on knowledge, theory, and so forth is
that they are presented forcibly as a series of flat statements
of fact in a way that denies the very thesis you put forth.

It seems to me that part of your approach rests on certain code
words, like "problems" and "arrangements", which have a special
significance to you that isn't evident to me.

"Making arrangements" is sufficiently vague a
concept that we can apply it at any level to anything at all,
even muscle tensions, which makes the concept less than maximally

As to "problems", what is a problem but a difference between the
way you perceive things and the way you wish to perceive them? I
don't see any special meaning in this word that indicates some
new factor that PCT ought to take into account but doesn't.

You offer terms like these as if they cut through all the fog and
explain the "realities" of human behavior in a simple and
comprehensive way. But no word can do that.

It seems to me that you're simply expressing a hierarchical
control relationship in which a higher system adjusts reference
signals for a lower one -- except that the way you express it, it
seems that the directions are always given in words, and that
they pertain to actions rather than perceptions, as if a given
action always has a predictable outcome.

The instruction is not an instruction for an action, but a
description of a perception to be accomplished by an UNSPECIFIED

Seems to me that I was a lot easier on Sociocybernetics than Bill was.
I think you just like him better than me. It's OK. I like you anyway.

You continue:

I posted the list (as I noted) for the statements about science
and laws but I will still stand by the other statements. I
do guide my actions by the directions that I give myself by
setting reference signals and acting to accomplish them.
that does not fit in your model then your model is wrong but you
are not stupid; just wrong.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. No, your words do not seem to fit
"my" model. Apparently, my model is wrong because it does not fit
your description of how you produce intentional behavior. Can you
think of any way of testing the correctness of your model of how you
behave -- other than by just seeing whether it seems self- evident
to you?

I will give a copy of your post to Bob but I doubt that he will
more that raise an eyebrow and mudder something like "Boy, has that guy
a lot to learn."

Thanks. If Bob Stewart wrote those sentences then I agree with your
prediction regarding how he will react.




on the net I didn't say I couldn't find meaning in those statements I said