Teleology

Bill_Powers1 · October 2, 1996, 3:55pm

[From Bill Powers (961002.0830 MDT)]

Bruce Abbott (961001.1425 EST) --

...it's one thing to offer a common-sense interpretation in terms of goals,
expectations, and purposes (as James did) and quite another to provide a
non-teleological explanation for purposive behavior. Future conditions
simply cannot act as their own causes; only present conditions can bring
about conditions that will be true in the future.

A nice review of the situation, Bruce. There's one thing that could be
added, starting with a question: why did teleology ever come into the
picture? I think the answer is that it was taken for granted that all
behavior is caused by environmental events, just as in physics. If there is
a behavior now that leads to a future goal-state, and all behavior is caused
by environmental events, there must be a future environmental event that
affects the present behavior: something that has not happened yet causes the
behavior that leads to it.

This contradiction, a behavior being caused by a nonexistent event, led some
scientists to conclude that there is no such thing as goal-seeking behavior.
What seems to be a goal is simply whatever consequence the current behavior
has. If the same behavior repeats in the same environment, naturally the
same consequence will occur, and furthermore there are different behaviors
that can lead to the same consequence. If you put behaviors into the same
class on the basis that they have had the same consequences in the past, you
have defined the goal as the consequence of the class of behaviors. The goal
of getting food is simply the consequence of performing one or more of the
behaviors whose consequence is to produce food. The goal does not have any
influence on the behavior; it is the behavior (and whatever causes it) that
produces the "goal" state. This analysis has apparently satisfied many
people that they had disposed of the concept of purposive or goal-seeking
behavior.

But suppose you go back to the beginning and change the premise: behavior is
NOT caused by environmental events. As soon as you get rid of that premise,
there is no more teleology because future events don't cause behavior any
more than present-time events do. The meaning of telology changes. The
organism does, in fact, determine that a future event shall occur and it
produces the actions that will lead to it, even if those actions have to
change due to unforseen circumstances. The only drawback of changing the
premise this way is that the normal causal chain can't explain the result.
The explanation now lies in a present-time _specification_ of a future state
of affairs, with behavior being continually adjusted to make the current
state of affairs continue to approach the specified final state of affairs.
A system organized to behave this way actually usurps the role of normal
causes in the environment. It _varies_ the causes that it can affect in such
a way as to produce _one specific preselected final effect_.

Incidentally, the process of "selective retention" does not necessarily rule
out goals. If organisms can start and stop the process of mutation, they can
keep mutation going until some result they consider favorable occurs, and
then stop the mutations. This implies a reference signal of some sort that
defines a "favorable" result. I think it's quite possible that reference
signals which influence selective retention have been built into the genome
since the earliest cellular organisms developed.

In the background, of course, there is always "natural" selection. Organisms
which compete with others for a chance to live to reproduce are "selected"
according to which control the more successfully for reproduction. But when
the only criterion is life or death, the selection process must necessarily
be slow and crude with luck, good and bad, having just as much effect on
survival as fitness has. The development of internal criteria for selection
would quickly relegate blind variation and retention to a minor role.

The greatest weakness of the "genetic algorithm" approach is that the
modeled organisms are rewarded for a move "in the right direction" instead
of for actually achieving the result necessary for surviving. Obviously, if
the "right direction" is known in advance, we are not seeing pure natural
selection, but goal-directed selection.

It all comes back to control systems in the end, doesn't it?

Best,

Bill P.

BRUCE_STEPHANIE_ABBO · December 1, 2005, 6:35pm

[From Bruce Abbott (2005.12.01.1315 est)]

I've got a new email address and just finished changing my CSGnet subscription to reflect this, so this looks like a good time to jump into the discussion while confirming that the new account is properly set up.

Rick Marken (2005.12.01.0820) --

At dictionary.com the first definition of teleology is "The study of design
or purpose in natural phenomena". Well, that's what PCT is all about. The
fact that teleology has been dismissed by scientists (Bill Powers has noted
that teleology is still considered a "scientific profanity") goes a long way
towards explaining why PCT has not caught on with psychologists who want to
consider themselves scientific.

Unfortunately, teleology seems to have acquired a number of definitions, and we have to be careful to identify which version we are referring to when discussing the term. As I understand it, the version that is considered "unscientific" is the version stating that somehow, ends bring about their own means. According to this idea, teeth develop because in the future we will need something with which to chew our food. The idea was seen as unscientic because it seemed to require that effects act backward in time to produce their own causes.

But Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection demonstrated that such "functional" structures do not come about by acting backward in time, but rather by repeatedly selecting in present time for characteristics that improve reproductive fitness. That was the first great advance in understanding how Aristotle's "final causation" could occur without violating the rules of ordinary cause and effect. The second advance was to show how the specification in the present of a reference state could bring about actions that would tend toward bringing about that state over time. The mechanism in this case is of course the control system, which like the mechanism of evolution brings about its result while obeying ordinary (and scientifically acceptable) mechanical causation.

Bruce A.

Richard_Marken2 · December 1, 2005, 7:30pm

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.01.1130)]

Bruce Abbott (2005.12.01.1315 est)

I've got a new email address and just finished changing my CSGnet
subscription to reflect this, so this looks like a good time to jump into
the discussion while confirming that the new account is properly set up.

I'm sorry, I just can't take seriously the rantings of fellow whose middle
name is Stephanie. What do you think I am, a damned Liberal!

Love

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

BRUCE_STEPHANIE_ABBO · December 1, 2005, 10:25pm

[From Bruce Abbott (2005.12.01.1725 est)]

Rick Marken (2005.12.01.1130) –

Bruce Abbott (2005.12.01.1315 est)

I’ve got a new email address and just finished changing my CSGnet
subscription to reflect this, so this looks like a good time to jump into
the discussion while confirming that the new account is properly set up.

I’m sorry, I just can’t take seriously the rantings of fellow whose middle
name is Stephanie. What do you think I am, a damned Liberal!

Oh rats, you weren’t supposed to know that! By an amazing coincidence, my
wife has the same name (Bruce).

B. Steph A.

Dick_Robertson · December 2, 2005, 9:26am

[From Dick Robertson,2005.12.04.1400CST]

One slight cavil here. Taking our definition of "purpose" from the body of PCT work, the definition is synonymous with "reference signal," as I understand it. But, RS results from storage of previous perceptual signals at the time intrinsic error is reduced. Therefore, there can't be a RS, thus, a "purpose" before a control system develops --for the variable in question. Prior to that you have the intrinsic system and reorganization. Couldn't one then say that "teleology" is a term for the idea that intrinsic systems inherently seek control of variables related to the survival of organisms? But, if you grant that, then where do intrinsic systems come from in the first place? Do you need a prime watchmaker, life force or is it the result of chance happenings in a primeival soup?

Best,

Dick R.

Rick Marken wrote:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.04.1140)]

Runkel on Abbott's picture of teleology of 2005.12.01.1315 est:

Abbott's picture of the term "teleology" is also mine: that although the term is sometimes used to refer to the purpose of an individual creature, it is more often used to refer to a presumed GRAND PURPOSE of the species or the universe. Abbott's example of the teeth, for instance, refers to the species, not to the individual. It is (in the teleological view), the species or evolution or God that wants the teeth.

Something similar could also be said about the word "purpose", couldn't it? "Purpose" is often used to refer to a future state that causes present action. So "purpose" can be said to refer to "backward causality". Does that mean that we shouldn't say that PCT is the "science of purpose"?

It seems to me that "teleology" is a perfectly good word that refers to the study of "purpose", which is also a perfectly good word that refers to the intended results of action. I think that these words have picked up unfortunate connotations (like those you mention above) simply because scientists have assumed that purpose could not exist in within a world of cause and effect. PCT shows that purpose can exist in a world of cause and effect when cause and effect are organized into a closed negative feedback loop. So it's no longer necessary for scientists to fear "teleology" or "purpose".

I think it's probably a good idea to talk with scientists about PCT using words like "teleology" and "purpose" in order to let them know that these are now perfectly legitimate areas of scientific study. If we try to conceal the fact that we are talking about "teleology" and "purpose" using scientifically legitimate synonyms like "control", I fear that scientists will never understand what the PCT revolution is about. They'll go on thinking that "teleology" and "purpose" refer to supernatural phenomena and carry on with their cause - effect view of life.

Best regards

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

Philip_J_Runkel · December 4, 2005, 12:00am

Runkel on Abbott's picture of teleology of 2005.12.01.1315 est:

Abbott's picture of the term "teleology" is also mine: that although the term is sometimes used to refer to the purpose of an individual creature, it is more often used to refer to a presumed GRAND PURPOSE of the species or the universe. Abbott's example of the teeth, for instance, refers to the species, not to the individual. It is (in the teleological view), the species or evolution or God that wants the teeth.

Richard_Marken2 · December 4, 2005, 7:41pm

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.04.1140)]

Runkel on Abbott's picture of teleology of 2005.12.01.1315 est:

Abbott's picture of the term "teleology" is also mine: that although the term is sometimes used to refer to the purpose of an individual creature, it is more often used to refer to a presumed GRAND PURPOSE of the species or the universe. Abbott's example of the teeth, for instance, refers to the species, not to the individual. It is (in the teleological view), the species or evolution or God that wants the teeth.

Something similar could also be said about the word "purpose", couldn't it? "Purpose" is often used to refer to a future state that causes present action. So "purpose" can be said to refer to "backward causality". Does that mean that we shouldn't say that PCT is the "science of purpose"?

It seems to me that "teleology" is a perfectly good word that refers to the study of "purpose", which is also a perfectly good word that refers to the intended results of action. I think that these words have picked up unfortunate connotations (like those you mention above) simply because scientists have assumed that purpose could not exist in within a world of cause and effect. PCT shows that purpose can exist in a world of cause and effect when cause and effect are organized into a closed negative feedback loop. So it's no longer necessary for scientists to fear "teleology" or "purpose".

I think it's probably a good idea to talk with scientists about PCT using words like "teleology" and "purpose" in order to let them know that these are now perfectly legitimate areas of scientific study. If we try to conceal the fact that we are talking about "teleology" and "purpose" using scientifically legitimate synonyms like "control", I fear that scientists will never understand what the PCT revolution is about. They'll go on thinking that "teleology" and "purpose" refer to supernatural phenomena and carry on with their cause - effect view of life.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · December 5, 2005, 1:06am

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.12.04.1900EST]

Me, too.

<But, RS results from storage of previous perceptual
signals at the time intrinsic error is reduced. Therefore, there can’t
be a RS, thus, a “purpose” before a control system develops --for the
variable in question. Prior to that you have the intrinsic system and
reorganization. Couldn’t one then say that “teleology” is a term for the
idea that intrinsic systems inherently seek control of variables
related to the survival of organisms?>

In a living human (actually every human), I understand there are certain intrinsic variables (these may be chemical rather than neural) that have reference signals for our bodies necessary to sustain life. These would include, blood sugar, oxygen, etc. These chemical references are connected to our neural reference signals so that via perceptual control, we can act upon our environment to eat, breathe, etc., and continue to live.

I suggest that there are intrinsic neural references in what I have called our human spirit (not part of our body or our conscious brain/mind) say for having knowledge, being appreciated, etc., that are just in us from birth, not something put there by remembering experiences. Does this make any sense in your mind?

<But, if you grant that, then
where do intrinsic systems come from in the first place? Do you need a
prime watchmaker, life force or is it the result of chance happenings in
a primeival soup?>

I doubt you want my speculation. But, now I am sorry for two reasons that you did not make it to the 2005 CSG Conference: 1) we did not get to play our annual tennis match and 2) you missed Bruce Abbott’s presentation that answers this question. It was titled, “The Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything”

It was beyond my comprehension, so you may have to sort this out more with Bruce. About all I can remember was you needed “particles” to get it all started. 8-))

B_Thalhammer · December 5, 2005, 4:44am

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.12.04.2245 CST)]

Kenny,

Spirit is not anything that can be tested for, and from a scientific perspective, suggesting a spiritual component of HPTC is laughable. Here is a reference I can give you to understand the objection. It is from an article about Intelligent Design, a similarly ridiculous claim:

"Portraying Intelligent Design as science," In article about 1/4 down:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>

"For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
* Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)"

Each of these qualifications is very important to how to determine whether a 12th level, a "human spirit" that set references for "intrinsic neural references."

Design an experiment where you can test for reference levels set by "spirit." If you cannot suggest a test for this speculation, it has no place on a scientific forum like this, just as suggesting that a murder suspect be tried by a lynch mob (not in our courts), your most recent contribution.

My commentary on this is that there is no empirical evidence for spirit, and therefore no way to test for references being set from outside the living control system, not to mention by a means outside of physical means.

···

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.12.04.1900EST]
<Dick Robertson,2005.12.04.1400CST>
<One slight cavil here. Taking our definition of "purpose" from the body
of PCT work, the definition is synonymous with "reference signal," as I
understand it.>
Me, too.
<But, RS results from storage of previous perceptual signals...>
In a living human (actually every human), I understand there are certain intrinsic variables (these may be chemical rather than neural) that have reference signals for our bodies necessary to sustain life. These would include, blood sugar, oxygen, etc. These chemical references are connected to our neural reference signals so that via perceptual control, we can act upon our environment to eat, breathe, etc., and continue to live.
I suggest that there are intrinsic neural references in what I have called our human spirit (not part of our body or our conscious brain/mind) say for having knowledge, being appreciated, etc., that are just in us from birth, not something put there by remembering experiences. Does this make any sense in your mind?
<But, if you grant that... >
I doubt you want my speculation. ...

Bozo_the_Clown · December 5, 2005, 5:33am

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.04.0006)]

In a message dated 12/4/2005 11:47:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

···

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.12.04.2245 CST)]

“Portraying Intelligent Design as science,” In article about 1/4 down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

"For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

Consistent (internally and externally)

Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see
Occam’s Razor)

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)

Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)

Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled,
repeated experiments

Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)

Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)

Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather
than asserting certainty)"

Each of these qualifications is very important to how to determine
whether a 12th level, a “human spirit” that set references for
“intrinsic neural references.”…

I assume your set of criteria applies for levels one through eleven in PCT as well, yes?

Good, so then we do agree then that PCT is not quire ‘scientific’ at this point, and being metaphysical is no crime, but it certainly broadens the scope of what is and is not ‘acceptable’ to talk about, doesn’t it?

So why is Kenny’s metaphysics any better or worse than PCT?

I don’t know if there is or is not a spirit involved and that will remain an open question for me until I see some evidence that convinces me one way or the other, but I certainly don’t see a problem in anyone thinking there might be.

Design an experiment where you can test for reference levels set by
“spirit.”

Sure, just as soon as you design one that shows that levels one through eleven exist .

I’m not sure why you feel making demands of others for things that you yourself cannot do (designing a test for a level) is a fair and just thing to do?

It is very easy to take pot shots at people who seem to have ideas you do not hold, but it seems your lack of respect for those ideas provide you with a means of trying to denigrate the individual because he holds those beliefs.

Is that your idea of a ‘professional’ thing to do?

Regards,

Marc

Bj_rn_Simonsen · December 5, 2005, 8:16am

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.12.05,09:20 EUST)]

From Rick Marken (2005.12.04.1140)
PCT shows that purpose can exist
in a world of cause and effect when cause and effect are organized into
a closed negative feedback loop. So it's no longer necessary for
scientists to fear "teleology" or "purpose".

As long as causes and conflicts are elements in a process and not the cause
of the process.
...

If
we try to conceal the fact that we are talking about "teleology" and
"purpose" using scientifically legitimate synonyms like "control", I
fear that scientists will never understand what the PCT revolution is
about.

You said what I think. Thank you.

bjorn

B_Thalhammer · December 5, 2005, 3:32pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.12.0945 CST)]

With ref to [Marc Abrams (2005.12.04.0006)], but more specifically to
Kenny's odd notion that spiritual phenomenon are addressable by science:

Simply, a bottom line scientific position is that the thing being done has to be testable. The very definition of spirit is that it is not a physical concept. Once you absolve a proponent of the tenets in that list, you leave the realm of science.

I have done my science so far, and I would expect that you still need to do yours.

We are however, not proving that anything exist or doesn't exist. That kind of statement is not really from a scientific perspective, btw.

Go back to what Rick, Bill, Dick, and the rest have said. Present a simple experiment that uses the scientific method, and observes the tenets outlined in the Wiki site. Essentially, you need an introduction, a background to your proposal, your research questions, your hypotheses, and the design of an experiment that will yield unbiased data.

Intelligent Design has been debunked and discredited as a science by the vast majority of scientists who know their stuff. It is not science, any more than an assertion that physical living control systems are able to receive reference signals from outside, or from "above." It is pure fantasy, from a scientific and professional perspective.

There is nothing unprofessional about stating the obvious, particularly in a scientific forum. k?

--B.

Richard_Marken2 · December 5, 2005, 4:04pm

[From Rick Marken (2005.12.05.0805)]

Dick Robertson (2005.12.04.1400CST) --

One slight cavil here. Taking our definition of "purpose" from the body
of PCT work, the definition is synonymous with "reference signal," as I
understand it. But, RS results from storage of previous perceptual
signals at the time intrinsic error is reduced. Therefore, there can't
be a RS, thus, a "purpose" before a control system develops

Yes. I agree. But keeping that cavil in mind, I still think it's fine to
talk about "purpose" and "teleology" now that PCT has shown that these are
legitimate subjects of scientific investigation.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · December 5, 2005, 4:19pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.12.05EST)]

<Spirit is not anything that can be tested for, and from a scientific
perspective, suggesting a spiritual component of HPTC is laughable. Here
is a reference I can give you to understand the objection. It is from an
article about Intelligent Design, a similarly ridiculous claim:

“Portraying Intelligent Design as science,” In article about 1/4 down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>

You would make a greater contribution here by commenting on what I present and mean, not on what you understand words that I use mean to you.

I have repeated many times in CSG that I use the tern “human spirit” not “spirit.” I am quite aware that religious men often use the term “spirit” as something supernatural. They might say they have an eternal spirit in them that lives on after their soul dies. I do not believe in that one iota.

My use of the term “human spirit” is eminently scientific and observable in humans. It is just as easy to test and compare as a “human body.” I assume you do not object to discussing your liver and how it affects your behavior?

My term “human spirit” relates to various non-body and non-conscious/cognitive/mind characteristics or capabilities that are clearly definable and measurable in humans. They are distinct from any “animal spirit.” Do you believe animals have instincts, Bry? Have you ever wondered why and how the wren outside my window knows it needs to build a nest in which to lay her eggs? Or, how she knows how to build a nest? Do you have a PCT scientific explanation for this observable animal nature? Would you tell me how her reference signal for these things got there? Would you test for it? I would like to hear it and in your own words, not from some reference article or wiki you like.

Humans have bodies different from dogs. Humans have brains/minds different from dogs. And, I contend that humans have innate “spirits” with desires or reference signals different from dogs. You might relate to them more as human instincts. But they are real and testable. And, they have something to do with human behavior. And, I don’t think HPCT has yet reached any level of demonstration for the reorganization system in humans that would meet your test below for a scientific theory. Do you? If so, go down the list and present your evidence. I am all ears.

<"For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

Consistent (internally and externally)
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see
Occam’s Razor)
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled,
repeated experiments
Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather
than asserting certainty)">

Now, if HPCT does not qualify as a scientific theory under your criteria, and we can discuss it here, I am not sure why I should not be able to discuss my “human spirit” ideas here also as I think they might affect human behavior.

This shows your lack of understanding of what I am even implying. The Twelfth Level I proposed is “self” and is not connected with the “human spirit.” My “human spirit” characteristic or ability is much more akin to the “reorganization system” of Bill Powers. I think Bill understands that even if you don’t. And, my comments were made to Dick Robertson in a context, not to you or in your context.

When you put words in my mouth, and then ridicule them, it reflects more on you than it does on me. And, why not make a contribution here yourself? Just exactly what experiments have you done to determine where the reference signals for Level 11 come from? No one else has done any either. It is all speculation, not science at all.

If you understood anything I have said above, you would recognize that I have not made any claims about references being set from the outside of anyone, naturally or supernaturally.

···

Bozo_the_Clown · December 5, 2005, 4:56pm

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.05.1012)]

In a message dated 12/5/2005 10:39:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

···

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.12.0945 CST)]

With ref to [Marc Abrams (2005.12.04.0006)], but more specifically to
Kenny’s odd notion that spiritual phenomenon are addressable by science:

I never said spiritual phenomenon is addressable by science. In fact I stated quite plainly that spiritual phenomenon is metaphysical.

I equated the levels in PCT on the same plain as any other theory that is not falsifiable, and hence not ‘scientific’, and metaphysical

I tried stressing the point that something being metaphysical is not a crime and most ‘science’ as we know it today started out as metaphysical until we were able to formulate, not tests of validation, but tests of falsifiability.

Simply, a bottom line scientific position is that the thing being done
has to be testable.

NO, not just testable but falsifiable. Anyone can dream up a ‘test’ and say that it ‘validates’ a theory.

The very definition of spirit is that it is not a
physical concept. Once you absolve a proponent of the tenets in that
list, you leave the realm of science.

That list represents one set of ‘rules’ of ‘science’. I have seen others, but I don’t disagree with that list.

I have done my science so far, and I would expect that you still need to
do yours.

Really? Then why not share the great news of how you have come up with a way of testing for the various PCT levels you hold to be fact and the tests you have performed ?

What I disagreed with you on was your insistence on asking Kenny to do something you yourself are incapable of doing for your own set beliefs.

We are however, not proving that anything exist or doesn’t exist. That
kind of statement is not really from a scientific perspective, btw.

You cannot ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ the existence of anything empirical, save for some simple mathematics and logic.

Go back to what Rick, Bill, Dick, and the rest have said. Present a
simple experiment that uses the scientific method,

And what might the ‘scientific method’ be?

and observes the >tenets outlined in the Wiki site. Essentially, you need an >introduction, a background to your proposal, your research questions, your >hypotheses, and the design of an experiment that will yield unbiased data.

Is this your idea of the 'scientific method? Did you notice in your ‘Wiki’ list the item called ‘falsifiability’? Do you know what this concept entails? I’ll save you the trouble of going there;

Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the apparently paradoxical idea that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.

Falsifiable does not mean false . For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be at least in principle possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation had not been made. For example, the proposition “All crows are black” would be falsified by observing one white crow.

Falsificationists claim that any theory that is not falsifiable is unscientific. Psychoanalytic theory, for example, is held up by the proponents of Karl Popper as an example of an ideology rather than a science . A patient regarded by his psychoanalyst as “in denial” about his sexual orientation
may be viewed as confirming he is homosexual simply by denying that he is; and if he has sex with women, he may be accused of trying to buttress his denials. In other words, there is no way the patient could convincingly demonstrate his heterosexuality to the analyst. This is an example of what Popper called a " closed circle ". The proposition that the patient is homosexual is not falsifiable.

Do you still think the levels in PCT are ‘scientific’? If so on what basis do you do so?

Intelligent Design has been debunked and discredited as a science by the
vast majority of scientists who know their stuff. It is not science, any
more than an assertion that physical living control systems are able to
receive reference signals from outside, or from “above.” It is pure
fantasy, from a scientific and professional perspective.

So? What exactly is a ‘professional’ perspective, and should I care about Intelligent Design?

There is nothing unprofessional about stating the obvious, particularly
in a scientific forum. k?

Obvious to whom?

That is Bryan, asked a bit differently, what data would I need to provide to you that would ‘prove’ to you that the levels as stated to exist in the PCT theory actually exist in the physical world?
You did not answer my question so I will ask it again, w hat is the difference between your metaphysical ideas (levels one through 11 in PCT) and Kenny’s (Level 12)?

Regards,

Marc

Bozo_the_Clown · December 5, 2005, 5:38pm

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.05.1158)]

In a message dated 12/5/2005 11:21:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, KJKitzke@AOL.COM writes:

···

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.12.05EST)]

My use of the term “human spirit” is eminently scientific and observable >in humans.

Really? How can I observe it? Can you cite any literature that talks about this observed spirit?

It is just as easy to test and compare as a “human body.” I >assume you do >not object to discussing your liver and how it affects your >behavior?

I will ask you the same question I asked Bryan; what data can I present to you that would falsify your belief? If you can’t think of anything then you are not doing ‘science’. But don’t give up hope, maybe one day you will be able to show how to falsify the existence of the 12th level you believe in.

My term “human spirit” relates to various non-body and non->conscious/cognitive/mind characteristics or capabilities that are clearly definable >and measurable in humans.

How is something that is not ‘physical’, observable, and how can you possibly measure something you can’t define? What you have said is what a ‘spirit’ is not, you have not talked about how you might define, observe, and measure this phenomenon.

They are distinct from any “animal spirit.” Do you believe animals have instincts, >Bry? Have you ever wondered why and how the wren outside my window knows >it needs to build a nest in which to lay her eggs? Or, how she knows how to >build a nest? Do you have a PCT scientific explanation for this observable >animal nature? Would you tell me how her reference signal for these things got >there? Would you test for it? I would like to hear it and in your own words, not >from some reference article or wiki you like.

Is this your reasoning behind your concept of the 12th level?

Humans have bodies different from dogs. Humans have brains/minds different >from dogs. And, I contend that humans have innate “spirits” with desires or >reference signals different from dogs.

So? Are you suggesting you know that animals do not have spirits? How do you know this to be so?

You might relate to them more as human instincts. But they are real and >testable.

You keep on talking about the ‘testability’. What kind of ‘tests’ do you have in mind and what do the tests show?

And, they have something to do with human behavior. And, I don’t think HPCT >has yet reached any level of demonstration for the reorganization system in >humans that would meet your test below for a scientific theory. Do you? If so, >go down the list and present your evidence. I am all ears.

Ah, now I think I am beginning to see your logic, and I can’t disagree with it. You have stated what I have stated except from the other side. You say that if Bryan feels HPCT is ‘science’ than your 12th level is also ‘science’, but as I hope to have shown you that you are both talking metaphysics, not science.

Regards,

Marc

B_Thalhammer · December 5, 2005, 7:41pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.12.05.1340 CST)]

No, Marc, not gonna get into parsing your note at all. Just a matter of the professional comment, that spiritual musings are untestable and that is that.

I prefer to think that things like a 12th spiritual level, Intelligent Design, Biblical Literalism, and all that clap trap are futile efforts when talking about advancing real knowledge.

Cheers,

--B.

Marc Abrams wrote:

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.05.1012)]
In a message dated 12/5/2005 10:39:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

     >[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.12.0945 CST)]

     >With ref to [Marc Abrams (2005.12.04.0006)], but more specifically to
     >Kenny's odd notion that spiritual phenomenon are addressable by
    science:

    I never said spiritual phenomenon is addressable by science. In fact
    I stated quite plainly that spiritual phenomenon is metaphysical.

...

Bozo_the_Clown · December 5, 2005, 8:53pm

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.05.1509)]

In a message dated 12/5/2005 2:42:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

···

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.12.05.1340 CST)]

No, Marc, not gonna get into parsing your note at all. Just a matter of
the professional comment, that spiritual musings are untestable and that
is that.

I prefer to think that things like a 12th spiritual level, Intelligent
Design, Biblical Literalism, and all that clap trap are futile efforts
when talking about advancing real knowledge.

Well, at least we both understand now why I fell the same way about the PCT hierarchy levels, except I would hardly call the PCT levels ‘clap trap’. Is that a ‘professional’ expression?

I think the PCT hierarchy may very well exist, except I have seen no evidence currently that this is the case. I am open to the idea that a hierarchy may exist and when I see the evidence and see the falsifiability in those tests than I would certainly consider endorsing the idea.

I’m not sure why you think closing yourself of from being influenced is such a good idea all the time. It might keep your ideas ‘safe’, but it could put you in the position of walking around believing in fairy tales, exactly what you seem not to want to do.

Good, glad to see that you and I agree that the ‘spirituality’ of levels one through 11 in PCT theory is no different than the spirituality involved in the 12th level proposed by Kenny.
What is ironic in all this is that I think you and Kenny are probably more alike then each one of you would be willing to admit to, even though on the surface you each seem to have very dissimilar beliefs.

Although your beliefs might seem be quite a bit different on the surface, you both basically walk around advocating your positions while stonewalling any public enquiry into how you came to your beliefs. You each think you have the ‘right’ answers to all the important questions and that those answers are obvious and well known to others, and since all of this is self-evident there really is no reason to ‘test’ these ideas any more than you already have, even though that ‘testing’ was done privately and is undiscussable.

Of course the undiscussability is undiscussable as well so you have self-referential theories that cannot be approached by others, and remain ‘safe’.

This helps secure your controlling of the environment but it doesn’t do much for your ability to see or acknowledge new ideas.

Don’t feel bad though, we are all like this, including myself. It is

what control systems do very well, and what they were intended to do, and that is to help keep us ‘stable’ in an unstable environment.

There are alternatives, and they are very much needed when in fact we need the cooperation of others. Fortunately, cooperation is not needed, nor is it asked for on CSGnet.

Regards,

Marc

Cheers,

–B.

Marc Abrams wrote:
From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.05.1012)]

In a message dated 12/5/2005 10:39:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:
 >[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.12.0945 CST)]

 >With ref to [Marc Abrams (2005.12.04.0006)], but more specifically to
 >Kenny's odd notion that spiritual phenomenon are addressable by
science:

I never said spiritual phenomenon is addressable by science. In fact
I stated quite plainly that spiritual phenomenon is metaphysical.
…

B_Thalhammer · December 5, 2005, 9:16pm

Kenny,

You have been beating on this idea of something beyond physicality (see below) for a long time. You need to get down to brass tacks and put in writing what you have been circumlocuting. Do you have the original paper presented at CSG? Could we see your most formal expression of this?

You are simply conflating the issue of what constitutes doing science with the viability of PCT as a suitable explanation for human behavior. In my previous note, I was talking strictly about doing an experiment, using the list from Intelligent (or so they describe it) Design. BTW, it was YOU who suggested that a father of an abused person might start or be part of a lynch mob to kill that person without a trial (I no longer
have the quote, but it was odious in view of the fact that we have the
proper judicial institutions.)

Listen, you put words down, and all I have are those words to interpret.
My contribution is that you are talking rubbish when you consider
testing for something that by definition is not testable. My
contribution is that such speculations are worthless to the furthering
of knowledge unless you can construct an experiment that can yield
unbiased data. Please don't go all fatherly and authoritarian on me in
this forum, unless you are willing to appear anti-scientific, paternalistic/authoritarian and medieval. Now....

Spirit (human spirit, whatever) is a just weasel word, and perhaps you should think of not using it at all. My opinion, but mixing metaphysical with physical does not help making your point.

Let me see:

Human spirit: Not supernatural, but "relates to various non-body and
non-conscious/cognitive/mind characteristics or capabilities that are
clearly definable and measurable in humans. They are distinct from any
'animal spirit.'" as you put it. How are they clearly definable? In what way? With what descriptors? What is the test for this? Secondary equally interpretable data? Seems like an assumption for which you will be willing to look for any data at all that will satisfy your claim. But that is not doing science.

Physicality or Non-psysicality: "Non-body and non-conscious/cognitive/mind characteristics...." What the heck is all that? Such mumbo jumbo I would never allow in an experimental design proposal. By definition, if it's non-body that means non-physical, and drops out of the realm of testable phenonmena. So, if it is not in the body, which is all we have to test, then it must by definition be OUTSIDE THE BODY. Check out: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem> Seems to me that once we get past the physical body, we are out of the realm of doing science.

Different Human and Dog spirits? Hmm... Get off...! Given our common existence with the rest of life, there is nothing different between humans and the rest of the universe. Nothing in the data. If you want to talk about "human spirit," well, what is it then? What-IS-it? Back to the above. Circuluar argument. That is not doing science.

"Humans have bodies different from dogs. Humans have brains/minds different from dogs. And, [BT: is there a missing 'therefore' here?] I contend that humans have innate 'spirits' with desires or reference signals different from dogs. You might relate to them more as human instincts. But they are real and testable. And, they have something to do with human behavior." ??? You said that there is an essense of being human, as I try to understand, that is not shared by any other living organism. Yet, this essense is somehow extra-corporeal, yet within or alongside of the body. What do you mean by desires? How can reference signals (in their electro-chemical nature) differ, given the same physical biochem processes? Rubbish. What kind of pre-scientific pauline-cristo-aristotelian philosophic /stuff/ is this? What do you mean by real? What do you mean by testable? What indeed does this extra-corporeal thing you say exists have to do with human behavior, if it is not of the same stuff?

Just tell me plainly, what IS human spirit? Give me a concrete definition that will amount to a testable assertion, and that will submit to empirical testing. Then design an experiment that will distinguish between human life and the rest of creation. Go ahead. Put it in writing. I would wager that most if not all scientific circles would ridicule such a proposal in any laboratory except in the Discovery Institute, and well....!

I would offer that if you cannot truly meet this simple request to clarify your vague claims, then this is no different than any non-scientific expression such as the Bermuda Triangle, UFOs, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Intelligent Design, or any other pseudoscience.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience> I wonder, Kenny, if you read any of these links I post. While I do not prefer wiki necessarily, it is a quick way to get to some commonly accepted summary knowledge. Sorry to speculate on your lack of enthusiasm for testing what you know, but it seems as if you don't review the articles or that you may open a page, grimace, and close it quickly, rejecting it out of hand. That is too bad, if that is so. So, therefore, have you made your mind up already about what you conclude about science or what you believe about it? If so, that does exclude you from the scientific community pretty much.

That is my contribution, really. ;-/

Cheers,

--B.

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.12.05EST)]

<Spirit is not anything that can be tested for, and from a scientific
perspective, suggesting a spiritual component of HPTC is laughable. Here
is a reference I can give you to understand the objection. It is from an
article about Intelligent Design, a similarly ridiculous claim:

"Portraying Intelligent Design as science," In article about 1/4 down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>

You would make a greater contribution here by commenting on what I present
and mean, not on what you understand words that I use mean to you.

I have repeated many times in CSG that I use the tern "human spirit" not
"spirit." I am quite aware that religious men often use the term
"spirit" as
something supernatural. They might say they have an eternal spirit in
them that
lives on after their soul dies. I do not believe in that one iota.

My use of the term "human spirit" is eminently scientific and observable in
humans. It is just as easy to test and compare as a "human body." I
assume
you do not object to discussing your liver and how it affects your behavior?

My term "human spirit" relates to various non-body and
non-conscious/cognitive/mind characteristics or capabilities that are
clearly definable and
measurable in humans. They are distinct from any "animal spirit." Do
you believe
animals have instincts, Bry? Have you ever wondered why and how the
wren outside
my window knows it needs to build a nest in which to lay her eggs? Or, how
she knows how to build a nest? Do you have a PCT scientific explanation for
this observable animal nature? Would you tell me how her reference
signal for
these things got there? Would you test for it? I would like to hear it
and in
your own words, not from some reference article or wiki you like.

Humans have bodies different from dogs. Humans have brains/minds different
from dogs. And, I contend that humans have innate "spirits" with desires or
reference signals different from dogs. You might relate to them more as
human
instincts. But they are real and testable. And, they have something to do
with human behavior. And, I don't think HPCT has yet reached any level of
demonstration for the reorganization system in humans that would meet
your test
below for a scientific theory. Do you? If so, go down the list and
present your
evidence. I am all ears.

<"For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see
Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
* Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled,
repeated experiments
* Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather
than asserting certainty)">

Now, if HPCT does not qualify as a scientific theory under your
criteria, and
we can discuss it here, I am not sure why I should not be able to discuss my
"human spirit" ideas here also as I think they might affect human behavior.

This shows your lack of understanding of what I am even implying. The
Twelfth Level I proposed is "self" and is not connected with the "human
spirit." My
"human spirit" characteristic or ability is much more akin to the
"reorganization system" of Bill Powers. I think Bill understands that
even if you don't.
And, my comments were made to Dick Robertson in a context, not to you
or in
your context.

When you put words in my mouth, and then ridicule them, it reflects more on
you than it does on me. And, why not make a contribution here yourself?
Just
exactly what experiments have you done to determine where the reference
signals for Level 11 come from? No one else has done any either. It is all
speculation, not science at all.

If you understood anything I have said above, you would recognize that I
have
not made any claims about references being set from the outside of anyone,
naturally or supernaturally.