The road to utopia -- revisited

[From Bruce Gregory (990810.1635 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990810.1200 EDT)

And, for as
long as such fallen human beings (like we all are) exist,
life will be full
of conflict and sorrow whether or not anyone knows squat
about my favorite
theory of behavior.

What do you think?

I'm afraid I have to agree.

Bruce Gregory

[From Bruce Gregory (990811.0530 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990810.2110 EDT)

Koenig and other researchers affiliated with schools such as Duke, Harvard
and Yale, recently reviewed some 1,100 health-effect studies involving
religious practices and found that most show a statistically significant
relationship between worship-service attendance and improved health.

Good evidence that _belief_ has desirable consequences. If you look at the
Middle East you will find evidence that belief has some less desirable
consequences. Physicians are only starting to pay attention to the placebo
effect where belief also plays an important role.

Bruce Gregory

[From Bruce Gregory (990811.1159 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990811.0800)

Bruce Gregory (990811.0530 EDT)--

> Good evidence that _belief_ has desirable consequences.

I think not.

Since I agree completely with what you say, I must have expressed myself
poorly. Thanks for the clarification.

Bruce Gregory

[From Bruce Gregory (990811.1410 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990811.1000EDT)

When an Arab and a Jew have a different perception of who
their god is and
how and when that god is to be worshipped (system level
references) and how
their god commands them to treat one another (a principle
reference), you
have explosive ingredients of conflict that can only be
resolved by going up
to a level that HPCT does not recognize exists--a human
spirit level where we
are all of one kind.

Let's assume there is such a level. How are reference levels established
for controlling spiritual perceptions? I assume you covered this in
Vancouver.

Bruce Gregory

[From Bruce Nevin (990811.1151 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990810.1200 EDT)

life will be full of conflict and sorrow

Bruce Gregory (990810.1635 EDT)

I'm afraid I have to agree.

Put on a Louis Armstrong recording, guys. Satchmo decided at an early age
that he was going to be a happy man, and he seems to have done a pretty
good job of it.

Like that guy in England who seems to have lost his million-to-one bet of
one pound sterling that at the eclipse today the world would end. Nice to
see a sense of humor.

  Bruce Nevin

[From Kenny Kitzke (990811.1600 EDT)]

<Bruce Gregory (990811.1410 EDT)>

<Let's assume there is such a level. How are reference levels established
for controlling spiritual perceptions?>

Are you sitting down? I am speculating that spirit level perceptions in your
mind are changed from the external spirit world.

If you are done ROFL, I'll give you an example. This morning my mind was
cluttered controlling a hundred different perceptions. Suddenly, this
thought came into my mind about Tom. Tom is a member of my congregation who
was conflicted last Sabbath to the point of shaking about what he should do
about heart artery blockage.

He was convinced (from pain, other symptoms and past medical history) that
the hospital would find artery blockage at a test they would conduct early on
Tuesday. He knows if its bad, they are going to suggest doing by-pass
surgery while he is in there. He is petrified of such an operation (I can't
adequately explain why).

He has been studying chelation therapy (I'm not sure what that entails
either) and is convinced it might help him avoid a heart attack without
surgery. But, it takes some time for the treatments to work, and it might be
too late.

I tried a little MOL on Tom after Sabbath services. After a while, he
suddenly said, I think I know what to do. Unless blockage is so severe that
the doctor's say I am in imminent danger of a heart attack, I'm going to get
the chelation therapy and take my chances. He smiled, took my arm and said
thanks for talking me through this. I smiled and said, what are friends
for?, even though I felt I did absolutely nothing except ask questions about
this conflict he felt. :sunglasses:

Well, I had not actually thought about Tom since Saturday. Just got stuck in
my own perceptions. Suddenly, on Wednesday morning, I get this thought out
of nowhere, for heavens sake call Tom to see what happened yesterday, you
jerk.

I think that thought came from an angel who is able to communicate with my
human spirit. That angel jogged something in my brain. I don't know how
that works, but there is a lot about the brain that the scientists don't
understand either. Even PCT scientists. :sunglasses:

Not only did I feel stupid for not thinking about Tom before then, I also
felt guilty. Here I am worrying about my error signals about a bunch of
trivial lower level perceptions, while my friend and brother in Christ may be
in a life threatening position and in great mental or physical anguish. My
refererences quickly changed from Level 12 on down. I went to search for his
home phone number (I never called him at home before) and dialed.

His wife, Shannon answered. She said seemingly nonchalantly, I'm not sure
where Tom is. I gasped. Had he died, I thought? Heaven or hell does she
mean?

No, his test showed blockage 90% in one artery and 40-60% in the others. He
left the hospital and went for his first chelation treatment. Shannon said
he was out in the garden picking tomatoes a while ago (despite the doctors
advice to take it easy for a couple of days) but she could not see him. He
may have taken some tomatoes to his neighbor. I called later. Tom was in
high spirits. He was surprised and most grateful that I cared enough to
call. He made me feel good, emotionally and morally.

But, I don't think you have to believe in angels, devils, God and the like to
have similar experiences. Many non-believing athiests have experienced a
little voice that interrupts their minds (which some call their conscience)
whatever that is.

In any event, it is some thing that gives us a feeling of good or evil, peace
or fright apart from any rational thought we initiate. These spirit level
input disturbances can easily overcome the rest of the hierarchy references.
That is why I feel they are higher than even strongly and long established
belief and system references.

<I assume you covered this in Vancouver.>

Not really. My paper discussed why understanding behavior as the control of
perception is not the same concept as understanding human nature which,
according to the Bible and my experience, is composed of a body, mind and
spirit nature. PCT, by dealing with body sensations, and mental neural
activity and thought, covers a part of human nature as a controller (more
like animal nature as displayed by my dog Ramzi), but leaves out what I
believe to be man's most unique and vital nature-a spiritual one not found in
any lower species of living things.

I have already started writing a paper on the Twelfth Level and all its
implications to human life. I hope to demonstrate the Twelfth Level at the
next CSG conference in the East. Bring your Quiji? board. :sunglasses:

Kenny

[From Bruce Gregory (990812.1833 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990811.1600 EDT)

Are you sitting down? I am speculating that spirit level
perceptions in your
mind are changed from the external spirit world.

I see. What sort of evidence might be used to test this conjecture?

Bruce Gregory

[From Bruce Gregory (990813.1202 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990813.0810)

For others (most, fortunately) the system
controlling for "religious freedom" is much stronger than the system
controlling for the absolute rightness of Christianity; these people
don't bother anyone or even proselytize. But these latter people must
be suffering _some_ internal conflict because one part of them knows
(and is acting toward the goal) that everyone should be Christians.

This make sense, but there may be another factor involved. What inputs
we control often depends on the context. If one controls "the absolute
rightness of Christianity" in church, and "religious freedom" at work,
internal conflict may be minimized. Some people seem very adept at this
kind of compartmentalization.

Bruce Gregory

[From Kenny Kitzke (990812.1833 EDT)]

<Bruce Gregory (990812.1833 EDT)>

Kenny Kitzke (990811.1600 EDT)

Are you sitting down? I am speculating that spirit level
perceptions in your
mind are changed from the external spirit world.

<I see. What sort of evidence might be used to test this conjecture?>

I don't know what sort of evidence it would take for you to accept my
conjecture. I am not even sure tangible evidence is obtainable. :sunglasses:
Anyway, "Doubting Thomas's" are a dime a dozen. Someone's doubt changes not
that which is true.

For now, I would say my speculation about a Spiritual level of Perception in
the hierarachy of your human mind has about the same status of testability as
Bill Power's speculation that there is a Reorganization mechanism in your
brain. Have you any evidence of that Mechanism that you can share with us so
we might believe it is really there?

Kenny

from [ Marc Abrams (990814.1129) ]

[From Kenny Kitzke (990812.1833 EDT)]

For now, I would say my speculation about a Spiritual level of Perception

in

the hierarachy of your human mind has about the same status of testability

as

Bill Power's speculation that there is a Reorganization mechanism in your
brain. Have you any evidence of that Mechanism that you can share with us

so

we might believe it is really there?

Try _Why they Cry_ by Hetty Van De Rijt and Frans Plooij a book about 25
years of research done with human infants. Some pretty impressive research
into reorganization and learning within the first 18 months of life.

I would also recommend _Developmental Transitions as Successive
Reorganizations of a Control Hierarchy_ Pg. 67 of the ABS Journal, Sage
Publications Vol 34 Number 1 Again, some very convincing evidence of both a
hierarchy and reorganization.

Marc

[From Bill Powers (990814.1938 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990812.1833 EDT)--

For now, I would say my speculation about a Spiritual level of Perception in
the hierarachy of your human mind has about the same status of testability as
Bill Power's speculation that there is a Reorganization mechanism in your
brain. Have you any evidence of that Mechanism that you can share with us so
we might believe it is really there?

Not yet, but I have some ideas about how to get started testing it. What we
need is to develop ways of measuring control systems so we can get a rough
evaluation of the quality of control over a few seconds-worth of data. When
the organization of behavior changes, the quality of control should
actually deteriorate for a while, then improve to a new level. If we could
measure the quality of control rapidly enough, we could see these changes.

The Plooijs have seen this sort of thing on a scale of weeks in studying
children, and Dick Robertson reported a similar phenomenon over periods of
half an hour in a learning task in his article on "The phantom plateau."
We're not entirely without data, but we need more and better data.
Furthermore, while this sort of experiment shows reorganization happening,
it doesn't test the particular model I have offered. Once we know how to
detect reorganization in progress, we then have to try to test the idea
that it occurs when certain critical variables in the brain-body system
depart from their normal or reference levels (that is what my model would
require). So eventually we're going to have to measure physiological states
of the body, and see if changes in these states go with experimental
measures of reorganization. Ray Pavloski, some years ago, actually did some
testing of heart rate and blood pressure as a preliminary way of doing this
-- physiological measures of stress might well be fairly direct measures of
intrinsic error.

But all that is a pretty large research project, and I doubt that I will
ever be in a position to carry it out. I hope someone who has some backing
gets interested in it.

Along those lines, Kenny, what are you planning to do, or what could
someone do, to see if your proposals about a spiritual level will hold up
to experimental tests? Are you planning, for example, to try some
experiments to see if those sudden thoughts that come to you are really
coming from a supernatural being outside your head? Or are you so convinced
of the truth of that explanation that you don't think it needs testing?

Best,

Bill P.

from [ Marc Abrams (990815.1536) ]

[From Bill Powers (990814.1938 MDT)]

Robertson reported a similar phenomenon over periods of
half an hour in a learning task in his article on "The phantom plateau."

Dick, Is this paper available?

Ray Pavloski, some years ago, actually did some
testing of heart rate and blood pressure as a preliminary way of doing

this

-- physiological measures of stress might well be fairly direct measures

of

intrinsic error.

Bill, outside of the ABS article, does Pavloski have a paper on his work
with PCT?

Marc

[From Kenny Kitzke (990815.1500EDT)]

<Bill Powers (990814.1938 MDT)>

Kenny said to Bruce Gregory:

For now, I would say my speculation about a Spiritual level of Perception in
the hierarachy of your human mind has about the same status of testability as
Bill Power's speculation that there is a Reorganization mechanism in your
brain. Have you any evidence of that Mechanism that you can share with us so
we might believe it is really there?

<Not yet, but I have some ideas about how to get started testing it.>

I appreciate your objectivenss, honesty and humility. Several of your
disciples give much greater credence to the Hierarchy, the number of and
names of its Levels and your proposed Reorganization System than you do. :sunglasses:
They talk about them as though they are real human characteristics while it
seems you accept them as hypothetical constructs yet to be verified.

<What we need is to develop ways of measuring control systems so we can get a
rough evaluation of the quality of control over a few seconds-worth of data.
When
the organization of behavior changes, the quality of control should actually
deteriorate for a while, then improve to a new level.>

I see a similiar phenonmena in work systems all the time. When a new work
process is introduced (say a new telephone answering system which is believed
to be superior in capability), quality (an output of process control)
temporarily goes down as the bugs (human and hardware) are worked out in the
new process. Usually, after some time and experience, the new process
outperforms the old by a significant amount. Data consistently proves this
phenonomena.

<If we could measure the quality of control rapidly enough, we could see
these changes.>

OK. But, would it prove there is a reorganization system in the brain with
the characteristics that you have hypothesized? I would be inclined to agree
that the person simply learned a new mental control process (added a new
control loop to the mental hierarchy of experience/capability).

Do you see what bothers me? By coming up with special PCT lingo like
"comparator" (perhaps such terms are very sensible for technical descriptions
of models), the down side is we introduce new terminology for prior phenomena
which become difficult for others to comprehend.

People can describe what they mean by the old term "learning," and
communicate effectively about the phenomena behind that term, without having
the slightest comprehension of what learning is in terms of brain function or
how learning actually occurs. Now, are we going to try for a hundred years
to convince everyone we discovered a "reorganization system" essential to the
understanding of human behavior that is something different than what has
commonly been understood to be "learning" or "human development?"

<The Plooijs have seen this sort of thing on a scale of weeks in studying
children, and Dick Robertson reported a similar phenomenon over periods of
half an hour in a learning task in his article on "The phantom plateau."
We're not entirely without data, but we need more and better data.>

I have not studied the work of the Plooijs. But, I understood their work
suggests that the hierarchy of perceptions in a human develops over time.
This is not startling news. We learn to walk before we run. We learn, we
develop. Is it essential to say we reorganize? Is it necessary to say we
reorganize "randomly" when we experience unspecific "intrinsic error." These
must be proven.

<Furthermore, while this sort of experiment shows reorganization happening,
it doesn't test the particular model I have offered. Once we know how to
detect reorganization in progress, we then have to try to test the idea
that it occurs when certain critical variables in the brain-body system
depart from their normal or reference levels (that is what my model would
require).>

I should have read your entire post before writing a response as I read.

<But all that is a pretty large research project, and I doubt that I will
ever be in a position to carry it out. I hope someone who has some backing
gets interested in it.>

Me too.

<Along those lines, Kenny, what are you planning to do, or what could
someone do, to see if your proposals about a spiritual level will hold up
to experimental tests?>

If I am smart enough, I would like to prove by experiment that in the
hierarchy of human perception there is a reference level or levels which do
not specify perceptions to be received from man's bodily sensation nature or
from man's conscious neural activities of the brain. These perceptions are
received from what I call the spirit nature of man. They register in the
mind but unconsciously, mysteriously and perhaps supernaturally.

Such human spirit level references are inherent in man, and though hard to
explain in operational terms, they are very real and very powerful
perceptions that affect our lives every day just like hearing things or
making mental decisions. I see them as fundamentals of human life (sort of
like your gene-induced intrinsic variables) and what many call the "heart" of
man (not the heart blood pumping muscle). These spirit level reference
perceptions might include:
� the desire for knowledge and understanding
� the desire to matter and have purpose; to be appreciated, loved and valued
� the desire to survive and live forever.

Where do these reference perceptions come from? What level of your proposed
hierarchy establishes them? My hypothesis is a higher level of the mind.
from the spirit level of man's nature as a living being.

<Are you planning, for example, to try some
experiments to see if those sudden thoughts that come to you are really
coming from a supernatural being outside your head? Or are you so convinced
of the truth of that explanation that you don't think it needs testing?>

Now, I, of course, did not dream this spirit nature of man up one morning
while shaving. I read about it in the Bible, a source of truth and
inspiration for me. I believe it is true without proof by faith. For
others, I know that will not be sufficient.

BTW, my belief in a human spirit (apart from a body and brain) is not
equivalent to being religious, or Christian. Atheists have a human spirit
because they are human. Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, believers in the Greek
gods, believers in nature and fire, water and air, and Satanists all have
this same human spirit too. And, it functions whether or not the concept of
god or the supernatural ever arises in one's mental experience. But, if
there is an external supernatural world (which I believe by faith there is),
then the spirit nature of man is its input channel to man.

Do we grieve the death of a spouse or child merely out of physical
separation? or mental separation? because of principle? or because of some
system of belief? It strikes me we grieve because of our human spirit
suffers a disturbance.

I may not be able to demonstrate direct evidence of this human spirit in our
active mind, but I do believe I can show evidence of perceptions that are
higher than those of the hierarchy which you have described: some sort of
Twelfth Level, which when sufficiently disturbed by perceived input from the
systems level sets new reference levels for the entire hierarchy below.

It happens quite often and quite fast for people who have perceived miracles.
If I could get you to percieve a miracle at the next CSG meeting, even you
might start working on the spirit level of the hierarchy. Then, we might
find that HPCT can reavel a more complete picture of human nature. :sunglasses:

Kenny

[From Bill Powers (990816.1634 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990815.1500EDT)--

I appreciate your objectivenss, honesty and humility.

Enough to emulate them?

Several of your
disciples give much greater credence to the Hierarchy, the number of and
names of its Levels and your proposed Reorganization System than you do. :sunglasses:
They talk about them as though they are real human characteristics while it
seems you accept them as hypothetical constructs yet to be verified.

It is difficult to speak of an idea that has grown very familiar as if it
is a hypothetical construct requiring substantiation and challenge rather
than a truth one is somehow privileged to know. The essence of science,
however, is to admit that no matter how convincing a truth may be, the
knower is always fallible, and must be prepared to have his or her dearest
convictions overturned.

People can describe what they mean by the old term "learning," and
communicate effectively about the phenomena behind that term, without having
the slightest comprehension of what learning is in terms of brain function or
how learning actually occurs.

No, they can't. People are very confused about what they mean when they
talk about learning; they include under that term things that have nothing
in common with each other, such as learning to play a piano with expression
and learning that Adolph Hitler is dead and learning where babies come from
and learning to take multiple-choice tests. People let words do their
thinking for them, so they don't try to contact the experiences the words
are supposedly about. This means that their thoughts are shallow, confined
largely to word-associations undisciplined by logic or principles. And of
course they don't like to be told this.

Now, are we going to try for a hundred years
to convince everyone we discovered a "reorganization system" essential to the
understanding of human behavior that is something different than what has
commonly been understood to be "learning" or "human development?"

Of course. Our understanding of the matters thus loosely referred to is in
its infancy. The idea of a reorganizing system, while still only a
preliminary sketch, for the first time attempts to explain how it is that
what we learn (how to aim a spear accurately) may have nothing directly to
do with the reason for which we learn it (because our stomachs feel empty).
Such relationships have been accepted at face value, without any
recognition of the mystery that underlies the observations.

<The Plooijs have seen this sort of thing on a scale of weeks in studying
children, and Dick Robertson reported a similar phenomenon over periods of
half an hour in a learning task in his article on "The phantom plateau."
We're not entirely without data, but we need more and better data.>

I have not studied the work of the Plooijs. But, I understood their work
suggests that the hierarchy of perceptions in a human develops over time.

By simplifying their work to that extent, you destroy it. To do so without
even studying it is offensive.

I should have read your entire post before writing a response as I read.

Ever see a key on your keyboard labeled "Delete"? What you see of my output
is perhaps a quarter of what I write. On a good day.

<Along those lines, Kenny, what are you planning to do, or what could
someone do, to see if your proposals about a spiritual level will hold up
to experimental tests?>

If I am smart enough, I would like to prove by experiment that in the
hierarchy of human perception there is a reference level or levels which do
not specify perceptions to be received from man's bodily sensation nature or
from man's conscious neural activities of the brain. These perceptions are
received from what I call the spirit nature of man. They register in the
mind but unconsciously, mysteriously and perhaps supernaturally.

What you should be trying to do, if you want to achieve the humility,
objectivity, and honesty of a true scientist, is to look into your own
proposal for weaknesses, flaws, and inconsistencies --if only to be the
first rather than the last to discover them. To be the first is noble; to
be the last is ignominious. A scientist accepts propositions as being true
(for now) only after he and others have failed to refute them both
logically and experimentally. You should expecially search yourself to see
if you _want_ your proposition to be true; if you do, you must
automatically disqualify yourself from judging its truth. Scientists --
real ones, in my book -- do not make proposals and then try to prove they
are right. They try first to prove they are wrong. This is one of the ways
in which scientists learn to give up their egotistical attachment to their
own ideas.

Such human spirit level references are inherent in man, and though hard to
explain in operational terms, they are very real and very powerful
perceptions that affect our lives every day just like hearing things or
making mental decisions. I see them as fundamentals of human life (sort of
like your gene-induced intrinsic variables) and what many call the "heart" of
man (not the heart blood pumping muscle). These spirit level reference
perceptions might include:
� the desire for knowledge and understanding
� the desire to matter and have purpose; to be appreciated, loved and valued
� the desire to survive and live forever.

Where do these reference perceptions come from?

No, no, no. You're jumping the gun. You've asserted a certain explanation
of certain experiences. Before you start theorizing about them, however,
you have to establish that yours is the only valid way of describing them.
You have to demonstrate that they are real reproducible phenomena. And you
have to show that other, simpler, explanations of the same experiences are
less likely to be true than the one you offer: that "They register in the
mind but unconsciously, mysteriously and perhaps supernaturally." Have you
even looked for an alternative?

Are you planning, for example, to try some
experiments to see if those sudden thoughts that come to you are really
coming from a supernatural being outside your head? Or are you so convinced
of the truth of that explanation that you don't think it needs testing?>

Now, I, of course, did not dream this spirit nature of man up one morning
while shaving. I read about it in the Bible, a source of truth and
inspiration for me.

Why? It is not that for me, and I have read it many times during my life.
Why accept it just because it's written down? I know that in many places in
the Bible we find statements that it is the word of God, but why should we
believe those statements? I could make the same claim for my writings, but
would that make it true? Anyone can make that claim, and many do, but how
are we to judge whether it is a believable claim?

I believe it is true without proof by faith. For others, I know that

will >not be sufficient.

Why would it be sufficient for anyone? This claim to know the truth without
proof is not in line with your proclaimed admiration of "objectiveness,
honesty and humility." It is an arrogant claim, an egotistical claim, and
worst, a claim that bars anything you say from being taken seriously. A
scientist who says "I know my theory is right because I have faith in it"
is simply not a scientist. Such a person wants to arrive at the truth
without doing any of the hard work that is really required even to approach
it.

I may not be able to demonstrate direct evidence of this human spirit in our
active mind, but I do believe I can show evidence of perceptions that are
higher than those of the hierarchy which you have described: some sort of
Twelfth Level, which when sufficiently disturbed by perceived input from the
systems level sets new reference levels for the entire hierarchy below.

I think there is some evidence for that too; the Method of Levels relies on
a phenomenon of the kind you describe. However, I see no reason to suppose
that anything supernatural is involved. If it happens, it's natural.

Best,

Bill P.

from [ Marc Abrams (990816.2037) ]

What a beautiful post. .

Bill, I usually enjoy most of your posts, this one, for me, is special. ( No
Ken it has _nothing_ to do with you :slight_smile: )

Marc

[From Bill Powers (990816.1634 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990815.1500EDT)--

I appreciate your objectivenss, honesty and humility.

Enough to emulate them?

Several of your
disciples give much greater credence to the Hierarchy, the number of and
names of its Levels and your proposed Reorganization System than you do.

:sunglasses:

They talk about them as though they are real human characteristics while

it

seems you accept them as hypothetical constructs yet to be verified.

It is difficult to speak of an idea that has grown very familiar as if it
is a hypothetical construct requiring substantiation and challenge rather
than a truth one is somehow privileged to know. The essence of science,
however, is to admit that no matter how convincing a truth may be, the
knower is always fallible, and must be prepared to have his or her dearest
convictions overturned.

<clip> rest of post.

[From Kenny Kitzke (990817.1100EDT)]

<Bill Powers (990816.1634 MDT)>

I said:
I appreciate your objectivenss, honesty and humility.

<Enough to emulate them?>

All any of us can do is try to behave in a way that meets our references for
these variables. They are all references for me. I do not claim to be
infallible however and fell certain you do not claim to be either.

<The essence of science, however, is to admit that no matter how convincing a
truth may be, the knower is always fallible, and must be prepared to have his
or her dearest convictions overturned.>

Are you honest enough to admit that this is your perception of the essense of
science? That others may find different ways of expressing its essense?
According to discussions at the conference, we have many psychologists
parading around as "scientists" who don't meet your test. For they cling to
their fallible theory of S-R behaviorism, regardless of your scientific
proofs of our volitionally controlling our input perceptions and not our
behavior.

<People let words do their thinking for them, so they don't try to contact
the experiences the words are supposedly about. This means that their
thoughts are shallow, confined largely to word-associations undisciplined by
logic or principles. And of course they don't like to be told this.>

I don't disagree very much. Words, and our unique perceptions of what they
mean to us, are a source of fallibility of men, even for the best scientists.
So we do the best we can, and sometimes communicate effectively.

<By simplifying their work to that extent, you destroy it. To do so without
even studying it is offensive.>

That was an honest expression of my understanding. It was not my intent to
destroy their work by expressing it. I think that was something that
occurred in your mind. Whether I read it and disagreed, or understood it
wrong from discussions about it, makes no determination of the value of their
work. So, do I need to apologize for creating that impression in your mind?
I do.

<What you should be trying to do, if you want to achieve the humility,
objectivity, and honesty of a true scientist, is to look into your own
proposal for weaknesses, flaws, and inconsistencies --if only to be the
first rather than the last to discover them.>

Thanks for the advice. I've barely forumlated my proposal. Why do you
assume I won't do what you suggest in time? Do you know my intentions based
on your observations of my behavior?

<Scientists --real ones, in my book -- do not make proposals and then try to
prove they are right. They try first to prove they are wrong. This is one of
the ways in which scientists learn to give up their egotistical attachment to
their own ideas.>

As usual, you make some very sound points. I will try to emulate you as you
also try to be a true scientist. As should all your true scientist disciples.

I proposed a theory of where a reference perception for the desire for
knowledge, truth, understanding and wisdom come from in man. You say I am
jumping the gun.
I am a little confused here with your advice and conclusions.

Do you not accept that the experience of all men is to have this desire, this
want, this reference perception? That this desire is innate? That an infant
left on an isolated island, and raised by monkeys, without other humans to
observe or books to read will have this desire whether or not the monkeys
have it?

If you think there is such a desire inherent in the human specie, I merely
asked you where it is accounted for in the HPCT model. Can you explain why
you give no answer?

<I know that in many places in the Bible we find statements that it is the
word of God, but why should we believe those statements?>

I can't tell you why you should believe it. I do not even want to try. If
you really want to explore why I accept the Bible as true by faith alone, I
will answer you. But, that is not a subject for this forum and would be best
handled privately, IMHO.

<This claim to know the truth without proof is not in line with your
proclaimed admiration of "objectiveness, honesty and humility.">

That is your perception. I *believe* the Bible is true with objectivity,
honesty and humility. It matters not to me that you can't percieve it that
way.

<It is an arrogant claim, an egotistical claim, and worst, a claim that bars
anything you say from being taken seriously.>

Wow. I guess it troubles you, huh? It is my perception *for me.* I shall
never claim you are egotistical, arrogant or not to be taken seriously in
anything you say because you don't believe what I believe. Your words are a
disturbance to me because they are out of character of your normal humility.

<I think there is some evidence for that too; the Method of Levels relies on
a phenomenon of the kind you describe. However, I see no reason to suppose
that anything supernatural is involved. If it happens, it's natural.>

This is good. So let's both keep working on HPCT so it explains what we
observe governs the behavior of men. We can leave theology to the
theologians. When you explain where your desire to learn naturally comes
from Bill in your HPTC model, I will consider it and possibly change my
theory that it is a supernatural phenomena. Would that make me a true
scientist in your perception?

Until then, I would like to work on my own theory more so that you and I can
both test it and determine whether or not it provides a simpler explanation
for how the human mind works in total than HPCT currently does. And, I hope
others will extend and expand on what you started as a potential scientific
advancement in understanding human beings. There is much left to learn,
whatever that means. :sunglasses:

Kenny

[From Bruce Gregory (990817.1730 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990817.1100EDT)

I proposed a theory of where a reference perception for the desire for
knowledge, truth, understanding and wisdom come from in man.

Do you not accept that the experience of all men is to have
this desire, this
want, this reference perception? That this desire is innate?
That an infant
left on an isolated island, and raised by monkeys, without
other humans to
observe or books to read will have this desire whether or not
the monkeys
have it?

I don't know about Bill, but I certainly do not accept this.

Bruce Gregory

[From Kenny Kitzke (990817.2230 EDT)]

Bruce Gregory (990817.1730 EDT)

Kenny Kitzke (990817.1100EDT)

I proposed a theory of where a reference perception for the desire for
knowledge, truth, understanding and wisdom come from in man.

Do you not accept that the experience of all men is to have
this desire, this
want, this reference perception? That this desire is innate?
That an infant
left on an isolated island, and raised by monkeys, without
other humans to
observe or books to read will have this desire whether or not
the monkeys
have it?

<I don't know about Bill, but I certainly do not accept this.

Exactly what is it that you don't accept and on what basis?

Kenny

[From Bruce Gregory (990818.0654 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990817.2230 EDT)

Exactly what is it that you don't accept and on what basis?

All of it. On the basis that there is not a shred of evidence to support it.

Bruce Gregory

[From Dick Robertson,990824.0630CDT]

Marc Abrams wrote:

>From [ Marc Abrams (990815.1536) ]

> [From Bill Powers (990814.1938 MDT)]

>Robertson reported a similar phenomenon over periods of
> half an hour in a learning task in his article on "The phantom plateau."

Dick, Is this paper available?

Well, yes. If your library has Perceptual and Motor Skills -- 1985 "The
Phantom Plateau Returns" v. 61, 55-64.

Sorry, I've given out all my reprints, and the original was on Apple II
wordstar which I don't have anymore.

Best, Dick R.

···