Indeed, spending time with Bill (and Mary) Powers was among the
finest experiences I’ve ever had. He clarity of thought and his
critical evaluation of his own thinking was the best example of true
scientific practice I have ever encountered. And understand that I
have had the privilege of working with many fine scientists.
No, I’m not a biologist. I am an engineer that specialized in
measurement and control, most for nuclear power systems. I have a
high interest in biology and particularly biochemistry due to the
amazing work that has been done in my own lifetime. I find it
interesting that leading biochemistry researchers have generally
recognized that homoeostasis is a result of closed loop control
system interaction and that even DNA/RNA interactions seem to be
under a closed loop negative feedback control.
Rick and I have not sat down and talked to each other about PCT in
over 25 maybe 30 years now but when we did talk about it, it was
obvious to me that while his terminology and ‘angle’ of approach was
different from mine, his understanding of the most fundamental of
PCT concepts was rock solid. Through the years, here on csgnet,
when Rick and I have disagreed about something it has always been
either because I did not correctly state what I should have been
saying or it was (most often) that we each were misunderstanding
what the other was trying to say. In my opinion, there is no RCT!
What Rick says is PCT though it might be worded differently than
many of us might use, it is still compliant with the foundational
principles of PCT.
This is true, but understand that Rick and I almost violently
disagree about subjects other than PCT. I don’t idolize Rick but
rather I recognize that his perspective brings an additional way to
understand and apply PCT principles. Ed Ford was another that
differed, in my opinion. His deep understanding of PCT was nowhere
near as sound as Rick’s but Ed brought a great deal of clinical
experience to the fore. Phil Runkel of “Casting Nets and Testing
Specimens” fame was another brought what I thought was beautiful
insight in our field of PCT.
Without having my PCT literature with me, nor the research time, or
knowing specifically what issues you are referring to, there is not
much that I can say. I will point out though that one needs to
think about the purpose of one of Bill’s writings before drawing too
many conclusions. Especially when answering questions, Bill’s
discussion could be using a very narrow (or very broad) meaning for
a term depending upon which is more useful for the listener/reader
to understand what he was trying to convey. By that I mean that
when taken out of context it is also easy to misunderstand what he
meant.
Maybe some would be happy to see you go but I think that the net
would loose. It is indeed those that challenge what is being
asserted that can contribute the most. I know that years ago, some
of what you were posting annoyed the heck out of me but I did find
myself thinking deeply about what you were talking about and that is
GOOD thing not a bad one.
···
Hi Boris! I replied to you ‘off-net’
because I really did not want to get involved again. Not that I
dislike the discussions/arguments on csgnet but because they are
so time consuming at a time when I really can’t afford to spend
the time thinking and writing about this subject. However, since
you did publish this to the net, I will respond here.
On 2/14/19 7:35 AM, "Boris Hartman"
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Thankyou Bill for your kind answer.
I thinkthat’s what books are for. To remember what we thought years
or decades ago. It’s nice that you try to remember your
pleasent moments with Bill and Mary, but we also know that
older we are less we remember. So I still think that the
best way to check whether somebody is talking about PCT or
not is PCT literature. We can check statements word by word.
Exactly. Because they are written down. What do you think ?
But Iwanted to talk with you also about one other thing. Are you
biologist ? Because some of your latest statements could
mean much higher competence for interpretation of PCT
knowledge then I thought in the beggining of our
conversation. I’m sorry that I can’t tell you what I mean by
my statement, because others are “listening”. Specially
Rick.
I'dreally recommend you to start thinking on your own (not with
Ricks’s RCT) because I think you are much higher in
understanding PCT in respect to him (levels). Rick is
operating on the level of “control of sequences”. Well
I’m sure you already knew that. Why Rick and not Bill is
right ? Their theories are so different that there couldn’t
be any mistakes. One of them has to be right.
. WellI alsounderstand that bonds you created with Rick and others are
very strong and it’s hard to be “objective”. But think of
PCT future ? Is friendship and neglecting PCT literature
really the way to understand and upgrade PCT ?
I mustadmitt that I’m tired of repeating myself about what Bill
thought or he didn’t thought or what he understood or didn’t
understand. I also stopped deciding whether to answer
Martin, Eetu, you in the matter of “definitions” of control.
By my oppinion they are mostly wrong and as usual I could
support my findings with Bills’ citations and in Martins’
case with physiological. Everything what I read is quite far
from scientific ground. Who would care what I think about
Friston and Powers ?
Of course the best source we have now for what Bill thought is
the written word he left to us. B:CP is the briefest possible
summary. Though one needs to add the word “observed” to it. ** Observed** Behavior is the Control of Perception. This statement says
nothing about what the perception being controlled might be, nor
does it address any of the ‘mechanics’ of how the control system
functions but it does try to explain why virtually all other
psychological systems fail to account for ALL aspects of
behavior. As Bill, and every scientist worth their salt, has
maintained it IS the outliers that are important, not the bulk
data. Anytime there is an ‘outlier’ that the theory does not
explain then you know that either the theory is incorrect,
incomplete, the ‘test’ employed was faulty or some combination and
it is that aspect that should be studied if it is really desired
to further knowledge in the field. And yes, Bill has specifically
said that and not just to me but to conferences as well.
As to Friston... I found reading some of the material about and
by him to be rather interesting. He seems to be one of those
people that has stumbled upon closed loop negative feedback
control but has not recognized it for what it is. He does not
have William James excuse that the entire field of control systems
was not generally even known to exist. On the other hand, Friston
may also be influenced by such luminaries as Maxwell Maltz,
Norbert Wiener, and William Glasser which would certainly have
derailed any real understanding of control as applied by Bill
Powers.
And whatwould be the use of my answers ? I can’t understand why
Bills’ literature is not good enough evidence what is PCT ?
Even Powers ladies ignore that fact.
So Billit seems that I’m slowly saying good-bye to CSGnet. I’m
really sorry that we couldn’t meet. As I said before. Just
few real life experiments would be enough that you would
understand what Bill really meant with his diagram LCS III.
Oh nevermind. I understand that your books about PCT are
boxed somewhere.
Best,
Boris
From: Bill Leach
Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:36 AM
Re: The “FIT” between PCT and my
expressions of it
Boris,
I am so sorry that I have not respondedto you earlier. I can only claim that things have been and
are a bit hectic. Unfortunately, my memory on this aspect
is not strong other than I remember Bill, Mary, and I
talking about this very thing. However, I don’t remember
the details and my books on PCT are boxed up and in storage.
bill
On 1/25/19 2:02 AM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Bill,
Iagree. But would you agree that the best way to settle " disagreement/argument"
problem in PCT is PCT itself as presented in Bills’
literature. I’m trying for years to establish references for
disagreements/arguments" but it seems that nobody is
accepting Bills literature as “references”. Including Powers
ladies. I’d appretiate your help.
Best,
Boris
boris.hartman@masicom.net
wrleach@cableone.net
Sent:
**To:**boris.hartman@masicom.net
Subject: