[From Bruce Nevin (20190924:17:09)]
I have expanded my IAPCT 2019 presentation to a brief paper, and I have posted a new topic about it on Discourse.
···
/Bruce
Bruce Nevin,
I don’t know what makes you singing all the time the same BNCT song but what you are doing is harming PCT. When you’ll understand that your old phylosophical and psychological theoretical knowledge is just leading PCT into vannishing scientific theory.
What you presented in leading away from PCT and I’ll not rather speak of how much you understand how organisms function.
Bills’ PCT is not just “phenomenological” method. Bill was clear that it’s scientific method and that it’s supported with scientific evidences, which you don’t have… You are talking in Bills name and yo can’t know waht he really thought unless you you are Telepatic being. Just “physlosophical phenomenology” will not explain what is PCT and how organisms function.
You can think what you want but don’t mix your phenomenology with Bills’ scientific approach. And again your obvious tendency to show PCT in the form that suits your language show your tendency to change PCT theory into your thinking limits. How do you know what Bill was observing, perceiving, analyzing and memorizing, Many processes in human organisms’ actual control run without memory.
And again your citations about Poetry. Where are Bills’ citations that could support your Poetry dreams.
How many times do I have to emphasize that understanding and improving diagram on p.191 is neccessary for any serious theoretical discourse about how organisms function. “Question mark” on 11th level has to be removed if you want to understand how references are formed. And that makes all hierarchy works in proper manner. Not just Sequence level. Your partial understadning is just making more confussion in addition to confussion Rick already made.
I just can’t beleive that Powers ladies and other members beleive your fary tales about PCT. Start improving and finnishing diagram which Dug presented and make some usefull job for PCT development. That’s important way to upgrade Bill’s work. Making free discourses about something you call PCT and which shows your level of understanding PCT is not usefull step toward direction of primary goal Bill had : making general theory about how organisms function.
Does anybody on CSGnet feel any care for PCT or you just take care of yourself and your glory upon Bills’ work. What an egoism !!! It’s true that you function as PCT predicts but human beings are also social beings. And that’s also what Bill’s theory predicts. Beside taking care of yourself you should think also of taking care about original PCT. It’s vanninshing in your private theories. I assume that you moved conversations about PCT imto other fourm where you can dissect PCT so that it will be totaly lost in myriad of pieces. In understand why this suits you.
Is there really nobody here who would care about what Bill really wanted to achieve with his theory ?
Boris
···
From: Bruce Nevin (bnhpct@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: stalking perceptions in the wild
[From Bruce Nevin (20190924:17:09)]
I have expanded my IAPCT 2019 presentation to a brief paper, and I have posted a new topic about it on Discourse.
/Bruce
[From Bruce Nevin (20190928.09:14 ET)]
For some of the more recent developments in investigation of the reorganization system in action, please consider
Heimann, Mikael, ed. (2003). Regression periods in human infancy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ISBN 978-0805840988.
Trevarthen, Colwyn & Aitken, Kenneth. (2003). Regulation of brain development and age-related changes in infants’ motives: The developmental function of regressive periods. In Heimann (2003:107-184).
Plooij, Frans X. (2003). The trilogy of mind. In Heimann (2003:185-205).
···
/Bruce
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:31 AM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Bruce Nevin,
I don’t know what makes you singing all the time the same BNCT song but what you are doing is harming PCT. When you’ll understand that your old phylosophical and psychological theoretical knowledge is just leading PCT into vannishing scientific theory.
What you presented in leading away from PCT and I’ll not rather speak of how much you understand how organisms function.
Bills’ PCT is not just “phenomenological” method. Bill was clear that it’s scientific method and that it’s supported with scientific evidences, which you don’t have… You are talking in Bills name and yo can’t know waht he really thought unless you you are Telepatic being. Just “physlosophical phenomenology” will not explain what is PCT and how organisms function.
You can think what you want but don’t mix your phenomenology with Bills’ scientific approach. And again your obvious tendency to show PCT in the form that suits your language show your tendency to change PCT theory into your thinking limits. How do you know what Bill was observing, perceiving, analyzing and memorizing, Many processes in human organisms’ actual control run without memory.
And again your citations about Poetry. Where are Bills’ citations that could support your Poetry dreams.
How many times do I have to emphasize that understanding and improving diagram on p.191 is neccessary for any serious theoretical discourse about how organisms function. “Question mark” on 11th level has to be removed if you want to understand how references are formed. And that makes all hierarchy works in proper manner. Not just Sequence level. Your partial understadning is just making more confussion in addition to confussion Rick already made.
I just can’t beleive that Powers ladies and other members beleive your fary tales about PCT. Start improving and finnishing diagram which Dug presented and make some usefull job for PCT development. That’s important way to upgrade Bill’s work. Making free discourses about something you call PCT and which shows your level of understanding PCT is not usefull step toward direction of primary goal Bill had : making general theory about how organisms function.
Does anybody on CSGnet feel any care for PCT or you just take care of yourself and your glory upon Bills’ work. What an egoism !!! It’s true that you function as PCT predicts but human beings are also social beings. And that’s also what Bill’s theory predicts. Beside taking care of yourself you should think also of taking care about original PCT. It’s vanninshing in your private theories. I assume that you moved conversations about PCT imto other fourm where you can dissect PCT so that it will be totaly lost in myriad of pieces. In understand why this suits you.
Is there really nobody here who would care about what Bill really wanted to achieve with his theory ?
Boris
From: Bruce Nevin (bnhpct@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: stalking perceptions in the wild
[From Bruce Nevin (20190924:17:09)]
I have expanded my IAPCT 2019 presentation to a brief paper, and I have posted a new topic about it on Discourse.
/Bruce
Bruce Nevin,
it seems that you don’t understand the problem of your PCT ignorancy. Â Â You didn’t even mentioned in your IAPCT 2019 presentation Bills’ literature, although you mentioned all others used in your presentation.
My oppinion is that you again try to redirect problem from human (organisms) functioning in PCT perspective into some old psychological perspective, and you offer some literature probably based upon 100 years and more old terminoloigy and understanding how human could function.
What does it mean :
-
Regulation of brain development (it’s strongly assosiating me on Carvers’ work – On selfregulation of behavior although I think Carver came muuch further).
-
Regression periods in human infancy ???!!! (are you really leaving in your dreams in period of Freud. Your logic of explaining brains in 3 main parts like fro ex. id, ego, super-ego gave me the idea that you might be following Freuds idea of psychosexual development with regression indside it.Â
Regression (German: Regression), according to psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, is a defense mechanism leading to the temporary or long-term reversion of the reversion of the ego to an earlier stage of development rather than handling unacceptable impulses in a more adaptive way. The defense mechanism of regression, in psychoanalytic theory, occurs when an individual’s personality reverts to an earlier stage of development, adopting more childish mannerisms
What kind of psychology you try to introduce into PCT ??? You are even not trying to consider scientific bases of Bills’ PCT.
What does it mean recent literature ? Investigating a reorganization system is the main point of problem in diagram p. 191 (B:CP, 2005)
If you are trying to get some information from me, about the “arrow” in diagram 191 (B:CP, 2005) and explanation what I think about how PCT diagram should explain how organisms function then that’s something that is not what is going to happen until I see LCS IV.
Where is LCS IV ? When you’ll publish that book I’ll maybe explain what is wrong in your way of thinking about PCT with giving critics to that book. It must be clear what you understand or what you don’t about PCT and how organisms function. Whatever I’d tell you now could influence your understanding and changes in book. And that would be sure presented as your idea with no real author mentioned. Like Rick ?
As far as Frans Plooij is concerned I think he is a great person. And I think he supports scientific explanation of PCT considering our conversation some years ago. And I think he would support finnishing Bills’ (Dag) diagram as expanded version of diagram on p. 191 (B:CP, 2005).
I’m really interested how many members would support scientific explanaton of diagram 191 and how many your phenomenalistic ? I’m also interested what Powers ladies think about this problem.
Ask Dag what is the main problem in dividing processes in human beings into 2 parts ? As far as I remember Dag immediatelly recognized that “arrow” in new diagram 191 needs new explanation.
Why are you avoiding that diagram and directing me to some old fashioned literature with old terminology ??? Diagram shows the essence of PCT.
Boris
···
From: Bruce Nevin (bnhpct@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 3:16 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: stalking perceptions in the wild
[From Bruce Nevin (20190928.09:14 ET)]
For some of the more recent developments in investigation of the reorganization system in action, please consider
Heimann, Mikael, ed. (2003). Regression periods in human infancy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ISBN 978-0805840988.
Trevarthen, Colwyn & Aitken, Kenneth. (2003). Regulation of brain development and age-related changes in infants’ motives: The developmental function of regressive periods. In Heimann (2003:107-184).
Plooij, Frans X. (2003). The trilogy of mind. In Heimann (2003:185-205).
/Bruce
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:31 AM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Bruce Nevin,
I don’t know what makes you singing all the time the same BNCT song but what you are doing is harming PCT. When you’ll understand that your old phylosophical and psychological theoretical knowledge is just leading PCT into vannishing scientific theory.
What you presented in leading away from PCT and I’ll not rather speak of how much you understand how organisms function.
Bills’ PCT is not just “phenomenological” method. Bill was clear that it’s scientific method and that it’s supported with scientific evidences, which you don’t have… You are talking in Bills name and yo can’t know waht he really thought unless you you are Telepatic being. Just “physlosophical phenomenology” will not explain what is PCT and how organisms function.
You can think what you want but don’t mix your phenomenology with Bills’ scientific approach. And again your obvious tendency to show PCT in the form that suits your language show your tendency to change PCT theory into your thinking limits. How do you know what Bill was observing, perceiving, analyzing and memorizing, Many processes in human organisms’ actual control run without memory.
And again your citations about Poetry. Where are Bills’ citations that could support your Poetry dreams.
How many times do I have to emphasize that understanding and improving diagram on p.191 is neccessary for any serious theoretical discourse about how organisms function. “Question mark” on 11th level has to be removed if you want to understand how references are formed. And that makes all hierarchy works in proper manner. Not just Sequence level. Your partial understadning is just making more confussion in addition to confussion Rick already made.
I just can’t beleive that Powers ladies and other members beleive your fary tales about PCT. Start improving and finnishing diagram which Dug presented and make some usefull job for PCT development. That’s important way to upgrade Bill’s work. Making free discourses about something you call PCT and which shows your level of understanding PCT is not usefull step toward direction of primary goal Bill had : making general theory about how organisms function.
Does anybody on CSGnet feel any care for PCT or you just take care of yourself and your glory upon Bills’ work. What an egoism !!! It’s true that you function as PCT predicts but human beings are also social beings. And that’s also what Bill’s theory predicts. Beside taking care of yourself you should think also of taking care about original PCT. It’s vanninshing in your private theories. I assume that you moved conversations about PCT imto other fourm where you can dissect PCT so that it will be totaly lost in myriad of pieces. In understand why this suits you.
Is there really nobody here who would care about what Bill really wanted to achieve with his theory ?
Boris
From: Bruce Nevin (bnhpct@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: stalking perceptions in the wild
[From Bruce Nevin (20190924:17:09)]
I have expanded my IAPCT 2019 presentation to a brief paper, and I have posted a new topic about it on Discourse.
/Bruce
[From Bruce Nevin (20190930.22:56 ET)]
Boris Hartmann Sep 30, 2019, 2:58 AM–
Boris,
Since you have these questions and objections about words in the titles of the three book chapters that I listed, It is evident that you have not understood what those chapters are about. The book presents additional research and analysis relating to the seminal research in infant cognitive development by Frans Plooij and Hettij van de Rijt Plooi. If you had looked at the book or at those chapters, you wouldn’t be surprised by Trevarthen & Aitken’s use of the phrase “regulation of brain development” in connection with that research.Â
This use of “regulated” is I think in the same sense as in embryology: unfolding in a predictable sequence with predictable timing, presumed to be governed by innate, genetically determined control processes. Bill and others wrote about innately regulated development of control systems in embryology and early childhood; it should be possible to find discussions in the CSGnet archive. If you don’t like the idea that infants’ brain development during the first 20 months after birth is a ‘regulated’ process, then you don’t like Frans’s work . You might prefer a conventional view of child development, hostile to PCT, such as Dynamic Systems of Development: Change between Complexity and Chaos (1994) by Paul van Geert.
Since you esteem Frans, you should know that “regression period” is a prominent term in in his work, having nothing to do with terminology that Freud derived from a steam-engine metaphor for cognitive process.  If you had looked at Frans’s “Trilogy of mind” chapter, you would be aware that the title refers to that very diagram which you say I am avoiding, which Frans has reproduced in that chapter, and so you would not have to guess that he “supports” that diagram.Â
Warren has announced that Elsevier plans to release The interdisciplinary handbook of Perceptual Control Theory: Living Control Systems IV in June 2020. If you didn’t see the announcement, maybe others have missed it too, so it bears repeating.
···
/Bruce
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 2:58 AM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Bruce Nevin,
Â
it seems that you don’t understand the problem of your PCT ignorancy. Â Â You didn’t even mentioned in your IAPCT 2019 presentation Bills’ literature, although you mentioned all others used in your presentation.
Â
My oppinion is that you again try to redirect problem from human (organisms) functioning in PCT perspective into some old psychological perspective, and you offer some literature probably based upon 100 years and more old terminoloigy and understanding how human could function.
Â
What does it mean :
Â
- Regulation of brain development (it’s strongly assosiating me on Carvers’ work – On selfregulation of behavior although I think Carver came much further).
- Regression periods in human infancy ???!!! (are you really leaving in your dreams in period of Freud. Your logic of explaining brains in 3 main parts like fro ex. id, ego, super-ego gave me the idea that you might be following Freuds idea of psychosexual development with regression indside it.Â
Â
Regression (German: Regression), according to psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, is a defense mechanism leading to the temporary or long-term reversion of the reversion of the ego to an earlier stage of development rather than handling unacceptable impulses in a more adaptive way. The defense mechanism of regression, in psychoanalytic theory, occurs when an individual’s personality reverts to an earlier stage of development, adopting more childish mannerisms
Â
What kind of psychology you try to introduce into PCT ??? You are even not trying to consider scientific bases of Bills’ PCT.
Â
What does it mean recent literature ? Investigating a reorganization system is the main point of problem in diagram p. 191 (B:CP, 2005)
Â
If you are trying to get some information from me, about the “arrow” in diagram 191 (B:CP, 2005) and explanation what I think about how PCT diagram should explain how organisms function then that’s something that is not what is going to happen until I see LCS IV.
Â
Where is LCS IV ? When you’ll publish that book I’ll maybe explain what is wrong in your way of thinking about PCT with giving critics to that book. It must be clear what you understand or what you don’t about PCT and how organisms function. Whatever I’d tell you now could influence your understanding and changes in book. And that would be sure presented as your idea with no real author mentioned. Like Rick ?
Â
As far as Frans Plooij is concerned I think he is a great person. And I think he supports scientific explanation of PCT considering our conversation some years ago. And I think he would support finnishing Bills’ (Dag) diagram as expanded version of diagram on p. 191 (B:CP, 2005).
Â
I’m really interested how many members would support scientific explanaton of diagram 191 and how many your phenomenalistic ? I’m also interested what Powers ladies think about this problem.
Â
Ask Dag what is the main problem in dividing processes in human beings into 2 parts ? As far as I remember Dag immediatelly recognized that “arrow” in new diagram 191 needs new explanation.
Â
Why are you avoiding that diagram and directing me to some old fashioned literature with old terminology ??? Diagram shows the essence of PCT.
Â
Â
Boris
Â
From: Bruce Nevin (bnhpct@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 3:16 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: stalking perceptions in the wild
Â
[From Bruce Nevin (20190928.09:14 ET)]
Â
For some of the more recent developments in investigation of the reorganization system in action, please consider
Â
Heimann, Mikael, ed. (2003). Regression periods in human infancy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ISBN 978-0805840988.
Â
Trevarthen, Colwyn & Aitken, Kenneth. (2003). Regulation of brain development and age-related changes in infants’ motives: The developmental function of regressive periods. In Heimann (2003:107-184).
Â
Plooij, Frans X. (2003). The trilogy of mind. In Heimann (2003:185-205).
Â
/Bruce
Â
Â
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:31 AM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Bruce Nevin,
Â
I don’t know what makes you singing all the time the same BNCT song but what you are doing is harming PCT. When you’ll understand that your old phylosophical and psychological theoretical knowledge is just leading PCT into vannishing scientific theory.
Â
What you presented in leading away from PCT and I’ll not rather speak of how much you understand how organisms function.
Â
Bills’ PCT is not just “phenomenological” method. Bill was clear that it’s scientific method and that it’s supported with scientific evidences, which you don’t have… You are talking in Bills name and yo can’t know waht he really thought unless you you are Telepatic being. Just “physlosophical phenomenology” will not explain what is PCT and how organisms function.
Â
You can think what you want but don’t mix your phenomenology with Bills’ scientific approach. And again your obvious tendency to show PCT in the form that suits your language show your tendency to change PCT theory into your thinking limits. How do you know what Bill was observing, perceiving, analyzing and memorizing, Many processes in human organisms’ actual control run without memory.
Â
And again your citations about Poetry. Where are Bills’ citations that could support your Poetry dreams.
Â
How many times do I have to emphasize that understanding and improving diagram on p.191 is neccessary for any serious theoretical discourse about how organisms function. “Question mark” on 11th level has to be removed if you want to understand how references are formed. And that makes all hierarchy works in proper manner. Not just Sequence level. Your partial understadning is just making more confussion in addition to confussion Rick already made.
Â
I just can’t beleive that Powers ladies and other members beleive your fary tales about PCT. Start improving and finnishing diagram which Dug presented and make some usefull job for PCT development. That’s important way to upgrade Bill’s work. Making free discourses about something you call PCT and which shows your level of understanding PCT is not usefull step toward direction of primary goal Bill had : making general theory about how organisms function.
Â
Does anybody on CSGnet feel any care for PCT or you just take care of yourself and your glory upon Bills’ work. What an egoism !!! It’s true that you function as PCT predicts but human beings are also social beings. And that’s also what Bill’s theory predicts. Beside taking care of yourself you should think also of taking care about original PCT. It’s vanninshing in your private theories. I assume that you moved conversations about PCT imto other fourm where you can dissect PCT so that it will be totaly lost in myriad of pieces. In understand why this suits you.
Â
Is there really nobody here who would care about what Bill really wanted to achieve with his theory ?
Â
Boris
Â
Â
Â
Â
From: Bruce Nevin (bnhpct@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: stalking perceptions in the wild
Â
[From Bruce Nevin (20190924:17:09)]
Â
I have expanded my IAPCT 2019 presentation to a brief paper, and I have posted a new topic about it on Discourse.Â
Â
/Bruce
Bruce Nevin,
I don’t need to know what is written in those books with such a titles. And I don’t care. Whatever evidences are hiden in those books are obviously irrelevant for PCT and development of diagram 191. Because nothing happend in all those years (from 2003). I assume they are phylosophically and psychologically inspired. It’s probably something aligned with your wrong PCT thinking.
But if you think that those books have some serious adds to diagram 191 (B:CP, 2005) you can send them to me and I’ll read them. Since you or non of the authors contributed nothing to the diagram 191, I’ll assume that it’s not right direction of their research for PCT. But if you think that there is, you are welcome to make diagram 191 to match organisms functioning with help of their literature or any kind of literature. But stop rotating your lingua and mix air arround. Show something. Show evidences that will help explain diagram 191 and match PCT to the way organisms function. Do you understand what I want from you ?
I’ll not talk about my conversation with Frans (I need his agreement) but whatever you are writing about literature is from past (2003). And that is a long time for somebody to change his mind. That’s all for now about literature you offered. If anything changes I’ll let you know.
Now your priority is to solve the diagram above and prove that you understand how organisms function. If you’ll not do that I’ll wait for LCS IV and see what you really understand about how organisms function. You agreed with PCT mantra.
William T. Powers at all (50th Anniversary, 2011) : Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms
HB : That is our goal in PCT. So stop introducing literature that doesn’t contribute anything to understanding of diagram 191.
The problem about theorethical bases of PCT is quite complicated and obvuously for you hard nut. So on your place I’d try to use any literature that is avalable including those you mentioned, And I expect your explanation in our life time.
Glorifying literature and authors is not an evidence that you understand (or any of them) how organisms function.
The goal of my actions is clear. To fulfill Bills theory so that it will function as it should. You have to understand that me and Bill had quite long talkings (for months) and there were more evidences “on the table” than will ever be on the CSGnet. If you think that such a descission for changing diagram which was in use for decades is brought over night you are seriously mistaken. And I’m talking about author of PCT and conversation with him, which resulted in serious changes for PCT. Do you understand what I’m talking about ? It’s hard to give any adds to such a good theory and even harder to persuade Bill that changes are needed. As nothing is so good that it couldn’t be better. So stop talking and show some evidences and knowledge that will help finnishing diagram on p.191 (B:CP. 2005).
I’ll not listen to any pretext or plea that there is some literature or knowledge and authors with high names. I want evidences and knowledge that will help explaining diagram 191 and thus make clear how organisms function. The way how organism was presented in diagram 191 (inspired by Ashby) was not enough. You all know what was the result of my talkings with Bill. Everything is in CSGnet archives if you say that everything is there. Bill changed diagram and I didn’t want to give my explanation for “arrow” (ask Dag), because we couldn’t agree about authorization.
So I’m chalenging you or others who think that we should know how diagram should look like so to contribute to resolution of the problem which we started to solve with Bill.
Boris
···
From: Bruce Nevin (bnhpct@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 5:37 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: stalking perceptions in the wild
[From Bruce Nevin (20190930.22:56 ET)]
Boris Hartmann Sep 30, 2019, 2:58 AM–
Boris,
Since you have these questions and objections about words in the titles of the three book chapters that I listed, It is evident that you have not understood what those chapters are about. The book presents additional research and analysis relating to the seminal research in infant cognitive development by Frans Plooij and Hettij van de Rijt Plooi. If you had looked at the book or at those chapters, you wouldn’t be surprised by Trevarthen & Aitken’s use of the phrase “regulation of brain development” in connection with that research.
This use of “regulated” is I think in the same sense as in embryology: unfolding in a predictable sequence with predictable timing, presumed to be governed by innate, genetically determined control processes. Bill and others wrote about innately regulated development of control systems in embryology and early childhood; it should be possible to find discussions in the CSGnet archive. If you don’t like the idea that infants’ brain development during the first 20 months after birth is a ‘regulated’ process, then you don’t like Frans’s work . You might prefer a conventional view of child development, hostile to PCT, such as Dynamic Systems of Development: Change between Complexity and Chaos (1994) by Paul van Geert.
Since you esteem Frans, you should know that “regression period” is a prominent term in in his work, having nothing to do with terminology that Freud derived from a steam-engine metaphor for cognitive process. If you had looked at Frans’s “Trilogy of mind” chapter, you would be aware that the title refers to that very diagram which you say I am avoiding, which Frans has reproduced in that chapter, and so you would not have to guess that he “supports” that diagram.
Warren has announced that Elsevier plans to release The interdisciplinary handbook of Perceptual Control Theory: Living Control Systems IV in June 2020. If you didn’t see the announcement, maybe others have missed it too, so it bears repeating.
/Bruce
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 2:58 AM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Bruce Nevin,
it seems that you don’t understand the problem of your PCT ignorancy. You didn’t even mentioned in your IAPCT 2019 presentation Bills’ literature, although you mentioned all others used in your presentation.
My oppinion is that you again try to redirect problem from human (organisms) functioning in PCT perspective into some old psychological perspective, and you offer some literature probably based upon 100 years and more old terminoloigy and understanding how human could function.
What does it mean :
- Regulation of brain development (it’s strongly assosiating me on Carvers’ work – On selfrregulation of behavior although I think Carver came much further).
- Regression periods in human infancy ???!!! (are you really leaving in your dreams in period of Freud. Your logic of explaining brains in 3 main parts like fro ex. id, ego, super-ego gave me the idea that you might be following Freuds idea of psychosexual development with regression indside it.
Regression (German: Regression), according to psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, is a defense mechanism leading to the temporary or long-term reversion of the reversion of the ego to an earlier stage of development rather than handling unacceptable impulses in a more adaptive way. The defense mechanism of regression, in psychoanalytic theory, occurs when an individual’s personality reverts to an earlier stage of development, adopting more childish mannerisms
What kind of psychology you try to introduce into PCT ??? You are even not trying to consider scientific bases of Bills’ PCT.
What does it mean recent literature ? Investigating a reorganization system is the main point of problem in diagram p. 191 (B:CP, 2005)
If you are trying to get some information from me, about the “arrow” in diagram 191 (B:CP, 2005) and explanation what I think about how PCT diagram should explain how organisms function then that’s something that is not what is going to happen until I see LCS IV.
Where is LCS IV ? When you’ll publish that book I’ll maybe explain what is wrong in your way of thinking about PCT with giving critics to that book. It must be clear what you understand or what you don’t about PCT and how organisms function. Whatever I’d tell you now could influence your understanding and changes in book. And that would be sure presented as your idea with no real author mentioned. Like Rick ?
As far as Frans Plooij is concerned I think he is a great person. And I think he supports scientific explanation of PCT considering our conversation some years ago. And I think he would support finnishing Bills’ (Dag) diagram as expanded version of diagram on p. 191 (B:CP, 2005).
I’m really interested how many members would support scientific explanaton of diagram 191 and how many your phenomenalistic ? I’m also interested what Powers ladies think about this problem.
Ask Dag what is the main problem in dividing processes in human beings into 2 parts ? As far as I remember Dag immediatelly recognized that “arrow” in new diagram 191 needs new explanation.
Why are you avoiding that diagram and directing me to some old fashioned literature with old terminology ??? Diagram shows the essence of PCT.
Boris
From: Bruce Nevin (bnhpct@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 3:16 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: stalking perceptions in the wild
[From Bruce Nevin (20190928.09:14 ET)]
For some of the more recent developments in investigation of the reorganization system in action, please consider
Heimann, Mikael, ed. (2003). Regression periods in human infancy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ISBN 978-0805840988.
Trevarthen, Colwyn & Aitken, Kenneth. (2003). Regulation of brain development and age-related changes in infants’ motives: The developmental function of regressive periods. In Heimann (2003:107-184).
Plooij, Frans X. (2003). The trilogy of mind. In Heimann (2003:185-205).
/Bruce
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:31 AM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Bruce Nevin,
I don’t know what makes you singing all the time the same BNCT song but what you are doing is harming PCT. When you’ll understand that your old phylosophical and psychological theoretical knowledge is just leading PCT into vannishing scientific theory.
What you presented in leading away from PCT and I’ll not rather speak of how much you understand how organisms function.
Bills’ PCT is not just “phenomenological” method. Bill was clear that it’s scientific method and that it’s supported with scientific evidences, which you don’t have… You are talking in Bills name and yo can’t know waht he really thought unless you you are Telepatic being. Just “physlosophical phenomenology” will not explain what is PCT and how organisms function.
You can think what you want but don’t mix your phenomenology with Bills’ scientific approach. And again your obvious tendency to show PCT in the form that suits your language show your tendency to change PCT theory into your thinking limits. How do you know what Bill was observing, perceiving, analyzing and memorizing, Many processes in human organisms’ actual control run without memory.
And again your citations about Poetry. Where are Bills’ citations that could support your Poetry dreams.
How many times do I have to emphasize that understanding and improving diagram on p.191 is neccessary for any serious theoretical discourse about how organisms function. “Question mark” on 11th level has to be removed if you want to understand how references are formed. And that makes all hierarchy works in proper manner. Not just Sequence level. Your partial understadning is just making more confussion in addition to confussion Rick already made.
I just can’t beleive that Powers ladies and other members beleive your fary tales about PCT. Start improving and finnishing diagram which Dug presented and make some usefull job for PCT development. That’s important way to upgrade Bill’s work. Making free discourses about something you call PCT and which shows your level of understanding PCT is not usefull step toward direction of primary goal Bill had : making general theory about how organisms function.
Does anybody on CSGnet feel any care for PCT or you just take care of yourself and your glory upon Bills’ work. What an egoism !!! It’s true that you function as PCT predicts but human beings are also social beings. And that’s also what Bill’s theory predicts. Beside taking care of yourself you should think also of taking care about original PCT. It’s vanninshing in your private theories. I assume that you moved conversations about PCT imto other fourm where you can dissect PCT so that it will be totaly lost in myriad of pieces. In understand why this suits you.
Is there really nobody here who would care about what Bill really wanted to achieve with his theory ?
Boris
From: Bruce Nevin (bnhpct@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: stalking perceptions in the wild
[From Bruce Nevin (20190924:17:09)]
I have expanded my IAPCT 2019 presentation to a brief paper, and I have posted a new topic about it on Discourse.
/Bruce