# Thermodynamics
**URL:** http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580
**Category:** CSG2014
**Created:** [August 15, 2014, 2:05pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580 "2014-08-15T14:05:41Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2014, 2:05pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/1 "2014-08-15T14:05:41Z")
I heard Bill demonstrated PCT to be in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. May I see how he did this?
---
### Author:  [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/2 "2014-08-15T17:04:45Z")
[From Rick Marken (2014.08.15.1005)]
> **···**
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:05 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
>
> > I heard Bill demonstrated PCT to be in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. May I see how he did this?
>
> Hi Philip
>
> I don’t remember Bill demonstrating anything of this kind. I think Martin Taylor is the person who has been most interested in the relationship between PCT and thermodynamics. Maybe he can comment on this.
>
> Best regards
>
> Rick
>
> –
> Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
>
> Author of [Doing Research on Purpose](http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose).
> Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
---
### Author:  [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2014, 1:18pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/3 "2014-08-16T13:18:10Z")
[Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
```
Since Philip has previously expressed disdain for normal Science, I
```
am disinclined to do so.
But if he is seriously interested, he can find the Int. J. Human
Computer Studies special issue on PCT (1999, vol 50) and read the
Editorial.
Martin
PS. A few quotes from earlier messages from Philip:
--------Philip, message without ID header June 28 2014--------
> **···**
>
> > [From Rick Marken (2014.08.15.1005)]
> >
> > ```
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:05 AM,
> >
> > ```
> >
> > PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
> >
> > > ```
> > > I heard Bill demonstrated PCT to be in
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. May I see
> > > how he did this?
>
> > ```
> > Hi Philip
> >
> > ```
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > I don't remember Bill demonstrating
> >
> > ```
> >
> > anything of this kind. I think Martin Taylor is the person who
> > has been most interested in the relationship between PCT and
> > thermodynamics. Maybe he can comment on this.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> ```
> Science does not create car and computer. Logic
>
> ```
>
> creates. Science and creation are not the same. Science is
> like looking at behavior as output, trying to show numbers and
> publish. Creation is not this. Life does not follow the same
> processes as science does, and science cannot define life
> without realizing the concept of perceptual control system
> organization. Survival of the fittest thinking is not good. It
> takes away focus from individual’s purpose and so we are only
> left with observable output of evolutionary processes. To ask
> why does some animal have the shape it has, and then to
> associate it with the behavior of other animals preying on it,
> then you ignore the fact that the shape of almost any animal
> contains the golden ratio. The golden ratio is found also in
> the solar system: in the distribution of rings of saturn, in the
> distance between the earth and moon and other planets, in the
> dimensions of the Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the
> organization of the pyramids on Mars (which are organized in a
> fibbonaci spiral as well as a star of david). It is no
> coincidence that we find these numbers in our solar system, for
> it is only in such a perfect system that we will exist. But our
> system is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and the Ones who
> built the megalithic structures understood this and so they
> built the megaliths to protect the earth and the solar system.
> The purpose of these structures was to receive as input the
> geometrical flow patterns of the system and protect these inputs
> from disturbance. The people who built these structures are the
> protectors of the earth. They do not utilize scientific
> definition, they have their own. But they are probably like us,
> perceptual controllers, and there is nothing which literally
> prevents us from being like them (except for conflict between
> psychology and PCT). And if its done, science will no longer be
> of service to us, just as it is no longer of service to the
> humans who created the face on mars. If you havent realized,
> humans are done evolving. You will most likely never find a
> more developed thing in the universe than a human being. A
> human body cannot evolve further, as already everything in the
> body follows the flows in the shape of the golden geometry. All
> our bones and the relations between them is Phi. All which is
> left is for our backwards scientific logic to reorganize around
> the intrinsic shapes and references of the system we live in.
>
> ```
> ---------- June 27--------
>
> ```
>
> > ```
> > Everything in the universe,
> >
> > ```
> >
> > matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A
> > sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See
> > Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the
> > elements have been mapped to these geometries. In
> > fact, the exact same geometric structures have
> > been observed at all ranges of the observable
> > universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena
> > to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of
> > galactic superclusters. …
>
> > ```
> > So not to burst anybody's
> >
> > ```
> >
> > bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science
> > in which everybody doesn’t know everything.
> > Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human
> > insect colony where everybody specializes because
> > they need to for the colony to survive.
>
> > ```
> > -----------Earlier, quote by
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Boris June 27--------
>
> > ```
> > PJY
> >
> > ```
> >
> > :
>
> > ```
> > What does it matter if I
> >
> > ```
> >
> > respect science?
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > HB
> >
> > ```
> >
> > :
>
> > ```
> > I
> >
> > ```
> >
> > don’t understand how can you use something
> > that you are spiting on, to prove your
> > opinion about the source of references ?
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > Let
> >
> > ```
> >
> > me repeat some sentences you used to express
> > your attitude to science :
>
> > 1.
> >
> > ```
> > I'm sick of these new age
> >
> > ```
> >
> > scientists trying to come up with stupid
> > adjectival juxtapositions to describe
> > something they hope exists.
>
> > 1.
> >
> > ```
> > In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic
> >
> > ```
> >
> > game called science,
>
> > 1.
> >
> > ```
> > If you haven't figured it out yet,
> >
> > ```
> >
> > scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream
> > chasers running after a science which has
> > gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of
> > pure math.
>
> > ---------end quotes----------
---
### Author:  [@PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/4 "2014-08-16T19:36:09Z")
Rick and I already know what I said; and If you want Rick to show you reports of enraged distainment I’ve expressed to him through personal correspendence, do not hesitate to let him know. Otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself, and stop archiving pointless correspondences.
Thank you for the article.
> **···**
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
>
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
>
> > > ```
> > > [From Rick Marken (2014.08.15.1005)]
> > >
> > > ```
>
> > ```
> > Since Philip has previously expressed disdain for normal Science, I
> >
> > ```
> >
> > am disinclined to do so.
> >
> > ```
> > But if he is seriously interested, he can find the Int. J. Human
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Computer Studies special issue on PCT (1999, vol 50) and read the
> > Editorial.
> >
> > ```
> > Martin
> >
> > PS. A few quotes from earlier messages from Philip:
> >
> > --------Philip, message without ID header June 28 2014--------
> > Science does not create car and computer. Logic
> >
> > ```
> >
> > creates. Science and creation are not the same. Science is
> > like looking at behavior as output, trying to show numbers and
> > publish. Creation is not this. Life does not follow the same
> > processes as science does, and science cannot define life
> > without realizing the concept of perceptual control system
> > organization. Survival of the fittest thinking is not good. It
> > takes away focus from individual’s purpose and so we are only
> > left with observable output of evolutionary processes. To ask
> > why does some animal have the shape it has, and then to
> > associate it with the behavior of other animals preying on it,
> > then you ignore the fact that the shape of almost any animal
> > contains the golden ratio. The golden ratio is found also in
> > the solar system: in the distribution of rings of saturn, in the
> > distance between the earth and moon and other planets, in the
> > dimensions of the Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the
> > organization of the pyramids on Mars (which are organized in a
> > fibbonaci spiral as well as a star of david). It is no
> > coincidence that we find these numbers in our solar system, for
> > it is only in such a perfect system that we will exist. But our
> > system is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and the Ones who
> > built the megalithic structures understood this and so they
> > built the megaliths to protect the earth and the solar system.
> > The purpose of these structures was to receive as input the
> > geometrical flow patterns of the system and protect these inputs
> > from disturbance. The people who built these structures are the
> > protectors of the earth. They do not utilize scientific
> > definition, they have their own. But they are probably like us,
> > perceptual controllers, and there is nothing which literally
> > prevents us from being like them (except for conflict between
> > psychology and PCT). And if its done, science will no longer be
> > of service to us, just as it is no longer of service to the
> > humans who created the face on mars. If you havent realized,
> > humans are done evolving. You will most likely never find a
> > more developed thing in the universe than a human being. A
> > human body cannot evolve further, as already everything in the
> > body follows the flows in the shape of the golden geometry. All
> > our bones and the relations between them is Phi. All which is
> > left is for our backwards scientific logic to reorganize around
> > the intrinsic shapes and references of the system we live in.
>
> >
>
> ```
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:05 AM,
>
> ```
>
> PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
>
> > ```
> > I heard Bill demonstrated PCT to be in
> >
> > ```
> >
> > accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. May I see
> > how he did this?
>
> ```
> Hi Philip
>
> I don't remember Bill demonstrating
>
> ```
>
> anything of this kind. I think Martin Taylor is the person who
> has been most interested in the relationship between PCT and
> thermodynamics. Maybe he can comment on this.
>
> ```
> ---------- June 27--------
>
> ```
>
> > ```
> > Everything in the universe,
> >
> > ```
> >
> > matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A
> > sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See
> > Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the
> > elements have been mapped to these geometries. In
> > fact, the exact same geometric structures have
> > been observed at all ranges of the observable
> > universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena
> > to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of
> > galactic superclusters. …
>
> > ```
> > So not to burst anybody's
> >
> > ```
> >
> > bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science
> > in which everybody doesn’t know everything.
> > Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human
> > insect colony where everybody specializes because
> > they need to for the colony to survive.
>
> > ```
> > -----------Earlier, quote by
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Boris June 27--------
>
> > ```
> > PJY
> >
> > ```
> >
> > :
>
> > ```
> > What does it matter if I
> >
> > ```
> >
> > respect science?
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > HB
> >
> > ```
> >
> > :
>
> > ```
> > I
> >
> > ```
> >
> > don’t understand how can you use something
> > that you are spiting on, to prove your
> > opinion about the source of references ?
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > Let
> >
> > ```
> >
> > me repeat some sentences you used to express
> > your attitude to science :
>
> > 1.
> >
> > ```
> > I'm sick of these new age
> >
> > ```
> >
> > scientists trying to come up with stupid
> > adjectival juxtapositions to describe
> > something they hope exists.
>
> > 1.
> >
> > ```
> > In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic
> >
> > ```
> >
> > game called science,
>
> > 1.
> >
> > ```
> > If you haven't figured it out yet,
> >
> > ```
> >
> > scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream
> > chasers running after a science which has
> > gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of
> > pure math.
>
> > ---------end quotes----------
---
### Author:  [@PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2014, 7:40pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/5 "2014-08-16T19:40:18Z")
How do I get the editorial without paying $350?
> **···**
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:36 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
>
> > Rick and I already know what I said; and If you want Rick to show you reports of enraged distainment I’ve expressed to him through personal correspendence, do not hesitate to let him know. Otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself, and stop archiving pointless correspondences.
>
> > Thank you for the article.
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
>
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
>
> > > ```
> > > [From Rick Marken (2014.08.15.1005)]
> > >
> > > ```
>
> > ```
> > Since Philip has previously expressed disdain for normal Science, I
> >
> > ```
> >
> > am disinclined to do so.
> >
> > ```
> > But if he is seriously interested, he can find the Int. J. Human
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Computer Studies special issue on PCT (1999, vol 50) and read the
> > Editorial.
> >
> > ```
> > Martin
> >
> > PS. A few quotes from earlier messages from Philip:
> >
> > --------Philip, message without ID header June 28 2014--------
> > Science does not create car and computer. Logic
> >
> > ```
> >
> > creates. Science and creation are not the same. Science is
> > like looking at behavior as output, trying to show numbers and
> > publish. Creation is not this. Life does not follow the same
> > processes as science does, and science cannot define life
> > without realizing the concept of perceptual control system
> > organization. Survival of the fittest thinking is not good. It
> > takes away focus from individual’s purpose and so we are only
> > left with observable output of evolutionary processes. To ask
> > why does some animal have the shape it has, and then to
> > associate it with the behavior of other animals preying on it,
> > then you ignore the fact that the shape of almost any animal
> > contains the golden ratio. The golden ratio is found also in
> > the solar system: in the distribution of rings of saturn, in the
> > distance between the earth and moon and other planets, in the
> > dimensions of the Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the
> > organization of the pyramids on Mars (which are organized in a
> > fibbonaci spiral as well as a star of david). It is no
> > coincidence that we find these numbers in our solar system, for
> > it is only in such a perfect system that we will exist. But our
> > system is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and the Ones who
> > built the megalithic structures understood this and so they
> > built the megaliths to protect the earth and the solar system.
> > The purpose of these structures was to receive as input the
> > geometrical flow patterns of the system and protect these inputs
> > from disturbance. The people who built these structures are the
> > protectors of the earth. They do not utilize scientific
> > definition, they have their own. But they are probably like us,
> > perceptual controllers, and there is nothing which literally
> > prevents us from being like them (except for conflict between
> > psychology and PCT). And if its done, science will no longer be
> > of service to us, just as it is no longer of service to the
> > humans who created the face on mars. If you havent realized,
> > humans are done evolving. You will most likely never find a
> > more developed thing in the universe than a human being. A
> > human body cannot evolve further, as already everything in the
> > body follows the flows in the shape of the golden geometry. All
> > our bones and the relations between them is Phi. All which is
> > left is for our backwards scientific logic to reorganize around
> > the intrinsic shapes and references of the system we live in.
>
> >
>
> ```
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:05 AM,
>
> ```
>
> PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
>
> > ```
> > I heard Bill demonstrated PCT to be in
> >
> > ```
> >
> > accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. May I see
> > how he did this?
>
> ```
> Hi Philip
>
> I don't remember Bill demonstrating
>
> ```
>
> anything of this kind. I think Martin Taylor is the person who
> has been most interested in the relationship between PCT and
> thermodynamics. Maybe he can comment on this.
>
> ```
> ---------- June 27--------
>
> ```
>
> > ```
> > Everything in the universe,
> >
> > ```
> >
> > matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A
> > sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See
> > Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the
> > elements have been mapped to these geometries. In
> > fact, the exact same geometric structures have
> > been observed at all ranges of the observable
> > universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena
> > to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of
> > galactic superclusters. …
>
> > ```
> > So not to burst anybody's
> >
> > ```
> >
> > bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science
> > in which everybody doesn’t know everything.
> > Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human
> > insect colony where everybody specializes because
> > they need to for the colony to survive.
>
> > ```
> > -----------Earlier, quote by
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Boris June 27--------
>
> > ```
> > PJY
> >
> > ```
> >
> > :
>
> > ```
> > What does it matter if I
> >
> > ```
> >
> > respect science?
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > HB
> >
> > ```
> >
> > :
>
> > ```
> > I
> >
> > ```
> >
> > don’t understand how can you use something
> > that you are spiting on, to prove your
> > opinion about the source of references ?
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > Let
> >
> > ```
> >
> > me repeat some sentences you used to express
> > your attitude to science :
>
> > 1.
> >
> > ```
> > I'm sick of these new age
> >
> > ```
> >
> > scientists trying to come up with stupid
> > adjectival juxtapositions to describe
> > something they hope exists.
>
> > 1.
> >
> > ```
> > In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic
> >
> > ```
> >
> > game called science,
>
> > 1.
> >
> > ```
> > If you haven't figured it out yet,
> >
> > ```
> >
> > scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream
> > chasers running after a science which has
> > gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of
> > pure math.
>
> > ---------end quotes----------
---
### Author:  [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2014, 9:10pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/6 "2014-08-16T21:10:22Z")
[Martin Taylor 2104.08.16.17.03]
```
A Library, for free?
```
Or you could buy the article from Elsevier at $35.95.
Or you could stop posting pointless correspondence, if you do it
only for the purpose of trolling. And then someone on this list just
might send you a copy.
Martin
> **···**
>
> > How do I get the editorial without paying $350?
>
> > ```
> > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:36 PM,
> >
> > ```
> >
> > PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
> >
> > > ```
> > > Rick and I already know what I said; and If you want
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Rick to show you reports of enraged distainment I’ve
> > > expressed to him through personal correspendence, do not
> > > hesitate to let him know. Otherwise, keep your opinions
> > > to yourself, and stop archiving pointless
> > > correspondences.
>
> > > Thank you for the article.
>
> > > ```
> > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > ```
> > > > [Martin
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
>
> > > > > ```
> > > > > [From Rick Marken
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > (2014.08.15.1005)]
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 15,
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > 2014 at 7:05 AM, PHILIP JERAIR
> > > > > YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu)
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > I heard Bill
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >
> > > > > > demonstrated PCT to be in
> > > > > > accordance with the laws of
> > > > > > thermodynamics. May I see how he
> > > > > > did this?
>
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Hi Philip
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > ```
> > > > > I don't remember
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill demonstrating anything of this
> > > > > kind. I think Martin Taylor is the
> > > > > person who has been most interested in
> > > > > the relationship between PCT and
> > > > > thermodynamics. Maybe he can comment on
> > > > > this.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > ```
> > > > Since Philip has previously expressed disdain
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > for normal Science, I am disinclined to do so.
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > But if he is seriously interested, he can find
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > the Int. J. Human Computer Studies special issue
> > > > on PCT (1999, vol 50) and read the Editorial.
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > PS. A few quotes from earlier messages from
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > Philip:
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > --------Philip, message without ID header June
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > 28 2014--------
> > > > Science does not create car and
> > > > computer. Logic creates. Science and
> > > > creation are not the same. Science is like
> > > > looking at behavior as output, trying to
> > > > show numbers and publish. Creation is not
> > > > this. Life does not follow the same
> > > > processes as science does, and science
> > > > cannot define life without realizing the
> > > > concept of perceptual control system
> > > > organization. Survival of the fittest
> > > > thinking is not good. It takes away focus
> > > > from individual’s purpose and so we are only
> > > > left with observable output of evolutionary
> > > > processes. To ask why does some animal have
> > > > the shape it has, and then to associate it
> > > > with the behavior of other animals preying
> > > > on it, then you ignore the fact that the
> > > > shape of almost any animal contains the
> > > > golden ratio. The golden ratio is found
> > > > also in the solar system: in the
> > > > distribution of rings of saturn, in the
> > > > distance between the earth and moon and
> > > > other planets, in the dimensions of the
> > > > Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the
> > > > organization of the pyramids on Mars (which
> > > > are organized in a fibbonaci spiral as well
> > > > as a star of david). It is no coincidence
> > > > that we find these numbers in our solar
> > > > system, for it is only in such a perfect
> > > > system that we will exist. But our system
> > > > is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and
> > > > the Ones who built the megalithic structures
> > > > understood this and so they built the
> > > > megaliths to protect the earth and the solar
> > > > system. The purpose of these structures was
> > > > to receive as input the geometrical flow
> > > > patterns of the system and protect these
> > > > inputs from disturbance. The people who
> > > > built these structures are the protectors of
> > > > the earth. They do not utilize scientific
> > > > definition, they have their own. But they
> > > > are probably like us, perceptual
> > > > controllers, and there is nothing which
> > > > literally prevents us from being like them
> > > > (except for conflict between psychology and
> > > > PCT). And if its done, science will no
> > > > longer be of service to us, just as it is no
> > > > longer of service to the humans who created
> > > > the face on mars. If you havent realized,
> > > > humans are done evolving. You will most
> > > > likely never find a more developed thing in
> > > > the universe than a human being. A human
> > > > body cannot evolve further, as already
> > > > everything in the body follows the flows in
> > > > the shape of the golden geometry. All our
> > > > bones and the relations between them is
> > > > Phi. All which is left is for our backwards
> > > > scientific logic to reorganize around the
> > > > intrinsic shapes and references of the
> > > > system we live in.
>
> > > > ```
> > > > ---------- June 27--------
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Everything
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > in the universe, matter
> > > > > itself, is a manifestation of
> > > > > sound. A sonic structure with
> > > > > a hierarchical geometry. See
> > > > > Buckminster’s cosmic octave
> > > > > hierarchy. All the elements
> > > > > have been mapped to these
> > > > > geometries. In fact, the
> > > > > exact same geometric
> > > > > structures have been observed
> > > > > at all ranges of the
> > > > > observable universe, from
> > > > > computations of subatomic
> > > > > phenomena to astronomical data
> > > > > regarding the coalescence of
> > > > > galactic superclusters. …
>
> > > > > ```
> > > > > So not to
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > burst anybody’s bubble, I’m
> > > > > sorry, but I do not respect a
> > > > > science in which everybody
> > > > > doesn’t know everything.
> > > > > Contemporary science is just a
> > > > > joke, a big human insect
> > > > > colony where everybody
> > > > > specializes because they
> > > > > need to for the colony to
> > > > > survive.
>
> > > > > ```
> > > > > -----------Earlier,
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > quote by Boris June 27--------
>
> > > > > ```
> > > > > PJY
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > :
>
> > > > > ```
> > > > > What
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > does it matter if I
> > > > > respect science?
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > ```
> > > > > HB
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > :
>
> > > > > ```
> > > > > I
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > don’t understand how can
> > > > > you use something that
> > > > > you are spiting on, to
> > > > > prove your opinion about
> > > > > the source of references
> > > > > ?
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Let
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > me repeat some sentences
> > > > > you used to express your
> > > > > attitude to science :
>
> > > > > 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > > I'm sick of these
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > new age scientists trying
> > > > > to come up with stupid
> > > > > adjectival
> > > > > juxtapositions to describe
> > > > > something they hope
> > > > > exists.
>
> > > > > 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > > In the
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > stupid, childish,
> > > > > apocalyptic game called
> > > > > science,
>
> > > > > 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > > If you haven't
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > figured it out yet,
> > > > > scientists are a bunch of
> > > > > pathetic dream chasers
> > > > > running after a science
> > > > > which has gotten lucky
> > > > > by feeding off of the work
> > > > > of pure math.
>
> > > > > ```
> > > > > ---------end
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > quotes----------
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> >
---
### Author:  [@PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2014, 10:59pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/7 "2014-08-16T22:59:32Z")
Well, somebody insisted on asking what I thought about science. I only posted once or twice, it’s been months ago already. And it seemed more of a personal correspondence between me and Boris. I like how Rick pretended like it never even happened. Maybe you should too.
So, it looks like each article costs $35. Some of them you authored. Others are authored by others here. Seems like a special pct edition of the journal or something. To which article were you referring to that discussed the laws of thermodynamics?
Philip
> **···**
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:36 PM,
> PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
>
> > ```
> > Rick and I already know what I said; and If you want
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Rick to show you reports of enraged distainment I’ve
> > expressed to him through personal correspendence, do not
> > hesitate to let him know. Otherwise, keep your opinions
> > to yourself, and stop archiving pointless
> > correspondences.
>
> > Thank you for the article.
>
> ```
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18
>
> ```
>
> AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> wrote:
>
> > ```
> > [Martin
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
>
> > > ```
> > > [From Rick Marken
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > (2014.08.15.1005)]
>
> > ```
> > Since Philip has previously expressed disdain
> >
> > ```
> >
> > for normal Science, I am disinclined to do so.
> >
> > ```
> > But if he is seriously interested, he can find
> >
> > ```
> >
> > the Int. J. Human Computer Studies special issue
> > on PCT (1999, vol 50) and read the Editorial.
> >
> > ```
> > Martin
> >
> > PS. A few quotes from earlier messages from
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Philip:
> >
> > ```
> > --------Philip, message without ID header June
> >
> > ```
> >
> > 28 2014--------
> > Science does not create car and
> > computer. Logic creates. Science and
> > creation are not the same. Science is like
> > looking at behavior as output, trying to
> > show numbers and publish. Creation is not
> > this. Life does not follow the same
> > processes as science does, and science
> > cannot define life without realizing the
> > concept of perceptual control system
> > organization. Survival of the fittest
> > thinking is not good. It takes away focus
> > from individual’s purpose and so we are only
> > left with observable output of evolutionary
> > processes. To ask why does some animal have
> > the shape it has, and then to associate it
> > with the behavior of other animals preying
> > on it, then you ignore the fact that the
> > shape of almost any animal contains the
> > golden ratio. The golden ratio is found
> > also in the solar system: in the
> > distribution of rings of saturn, in the
> > distance between the earth and moon and
> > other planets, in the dimensions of the
> > Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the
> > organization of the pyramids on Mars (which
> > are organized in a fibbonaci spiral as well
> > as a star of david). It is no coincidence
> > that we find these numbers in our solar
> > system, for it is only in such a perfect
> > system that we will exist. But our system
> > is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and
> > the Ones who built the megalithic structures
> > understood this and so they built the
> > megaliths to protect the earth and the solar
> > system. The purpose of these structures was
> > to receive as input the geometrical flow
> > patterns of the system and protect these
> > inputs from disturbance. The people who
> > built these structures are the protectors of
> > the earth. They do not utilize scientific
> > definition, they have their own. But they
> > are probably like us, perceptual
> > controllers, and there is nothing which
> > literally prevents us from being like them
> > (except for conflict between psychology and
> > PCT). And if its done, science will no
> > longer be of service to us, just as it is no
> > longer of service to the humans who created
> > the face on mars. If you havent realized,
> > humans are done evolving. You will most
> > likely never find a more developed thing in
> > the universe than a human being. A human
> > body cannot evolve further, as already
> > everything in the body follows the flows in
> > the shape of the golden geometry. All our
> > bones and the relations between them is
> > Phi. All which is left is for our backwards
> > scientific logic to reorganize around the
> > intrinsic shapes and references of the
> > system we live in.
>
> >
>
> ```
> On Fri, Aug 15,
>
> ```
>
> 2014 at 7:05 AM, PHILIP JERAIR
> YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu)
> wrote:
>
> > ```
> > I heard Bill
> >
> > ```
> >
> > demonstrated PCT to be in
> > accordance with the laws of
> > thermodynamics. May I see how he
> > did this?
>
> ```
> Hi Philip
>
> I don't remember
>
> ```
>
> Bill demonstrating anything of this
> kind. I think Martin Taylor is the
> person who has been most interested in
> the relationship between PCT and
> thermodynamics. Maybe he can comment on
> this.
>
> ```
> ---------- June 27--------
>
> ```
>
> > ```
> > Everything
> >
> > ```
> >
> > in the universe, matter
> > itself, is a manifestation of
> > sound. A sonic structure with
> > a hierarchical geometry. See
> > Buckminster’s cosmic octave
> > hierarchy. All the elements
> > have been mapped to these
> > geometries. In fact, the
> > exact same geometric
> > structures have been observed
> > at all ranges of the
> > observable universe, from
> > computations of subatomic
> > phenomena to astronomical data
> > regarding the coalescence of
> > galactic superclusters. …
>
> > ```
> > So not to
> >
> > ```
> >
> > burst anybody’s bubble, I’m
> > sorry, but I do not respect a
> > science in which everybody
> > doesn’t know everything.
> > Contemporary science is just a
> > joke, a big human insect
> > colony where everybody
> > specializes because they
> > need to for the colony to
> > survive.
>
> > ```
> > -----------Earlier,
> >
> > ```
> >
> > quote by Boris June 27--------
>
> > ```
> > PJY
> >
> > ```
> >
> > :
>
> > ```
> > What
> >
> > ```
> >
> > does it matter if I
> > respect science?
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > HB
> >
> > ```
> >
> > :
>
> > ```
> > I
> >
> > ```
> >
> > don’t understand how can
> > you use something that
> > you are spiting on, to
> > prove your opinion about
> > the source of references
> > ?
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > Let
> >
> > ```
> >
> > me repeat some sentences
> > you used to express your
> > attitude to science :
>
> > 1.
> >
> > ```
> > I'm sick of these
> >
> > ```
> >
> > new age scientists trying
> > to come up with stupid
> > adjectival
> > juxtapositions to describe
> > something they hope
> > exists.
>
> > 1.
> >
> > ```
> > In the
> >
> > ```
> >
> > stupid, childish,
> > apocalyptic game called
> > science,
>
> > 1.
> >
> > ```
> > If you haven't
> >
> > ```
> >
> > figured it out yet,
> > scientists are a bunch of
> > pathetic dream chasers
> > running after a science
> > which has gotten lucky
> > by feeding off of the work
> > of pure math.
>
> > ```
> > ---------end
> >
> > ```
> >
> > quotes----------
---
### Author:  [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2014, 3:34am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/8 "2014-08-17T03:34:24Z")
[Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.23.33]
> **···**
>
> On 2014/08/16 6:59 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
> YERANOSIAN wrote:
>
> > ```
> > To which article were you referring to that discussed
> >
> > ```
> >
> > the laws of thermodynamics?
>
> > Philip
> >
> > > ```
> > > [Martin Taylor
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > 2104.08.16.17.03]
>
> > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > [Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
> > > > > > … the Int. J. Human Computer
> > > > > > Studies special issue on PCT
> > > > > > (1999, vol 50) and read the
> > > > > > Editorial.
>
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Martin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ```
---
### Author:  [@PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2014, 8:52am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/9 "2014-08-17T08:52:09Z")
Do you have a copy, Martin?
Also, I have a question for those who knew Bill. Did Bill ever speak to Norbert Weiner about PCT? Weiner died in '64.
> **···**
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
>
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.23.33]
> >
> > ```
> > On 2014/08/16 6:59 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
> >
> > ```
> >
> > YERANOSIAN wrote:
>
> > > ```
> > > To which article were you referring to that discussed
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > the laws of thermodynamics?
>
> > >
>
> > > Philip
> > >
> > > > ```
> > > > [Martin Taylor
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > 2104.08.16.17.03]
>
> > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> > > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
> > … the Int. J. Human Computer
> > Studies special issue on PCT
> > (1999, vol 50) and read the
> > Editorial.
>
> > ```
> > Martin
> >
> > ```
---
### Author:  [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/10 "2014-08-17T12:55:07Z")
[Martin Taylor 2014.08.17.08.35]
```
I believe I have some paper reprints somewhere. I ought to have an
```
electronic copy of the printed version of all the papers in the
issue, but the last time I looked for one of them I could find only
draft versions of some of them. Indeed, I have a vague memory that I
only ever had paper copies for some of them. The final versions that
must have gone to the publisher seem to have got lost in the
sequence of changes of computer, or perhaps I saw some of them only
on paper. I could send you a draft version of the Editorial when I get home,
in a few days.
Can’t help you there.
Martin
> **···**
>
> On 2014/08/17 4:52 AM, PHILIP JERAIR
> YERANOSIAN wrote:
>
> > Do you have a copy, Martin?
>
> > ```
> > Also, I have a question for those who knew Bill.
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Did Bill ever speak to Norbert Weiner about PCT? Weiner died in
> > '64.
>
> > ```
> > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Martin
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > ```
> > > [Martin Taylor
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > 2014.08.16.23.33]
> > >
> > > ```
> > > On 2014/08/16 6:59 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > ```
> > > > To which article were you referring to
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > that discussed the laws of thermodynamics?
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Philip
> > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > > [Martin
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > Taylor 2104.08.16.17.03]
>
> > > > > ```
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > [Martin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
> > > > > > > > … the Int. J. Human
> > > > > > > > Computer Studies special
> > > > > > > > issue on PCT (1999, vol
> > > > > > > > 50) and read the
> > > > > > > > Editorial.
>
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ```
>
> > >
>
> >
---
### Author:  [@PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2014, 9:47pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/11 "2014-08-17T21:47:22Z")
Cheers
> **···**
>
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
>
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.08.17.08.35]
> >
> > ```
> > On 2014/08/17 4:52 AM, PHILIP JERAIR
> >
> > ```
> >
> > YERANOSIAN wrote:
>
> > > Do you have a copy, Martin?
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > I believe I have some paper reprints somewhere. I ought to have an
> >
> > ```
> >
> > electronic copy of the printed version of all the papers in the
> > issue, but the last time I looked for one of them I could find only
> > draft versions of some of them. Indeed, I have a vague memory that I
> > only ever had paper copies for some of them. The final versions that
> > must have gone to the publisher seem to have got lost in the
> > sequence of changes of computer, or perhaps I saw some of them only
> > on paper.
> >
> > ```
> > I could send you a draft version of the Editorial when I get home,
> >
> > ```
> >
> > in a few days.
> >
> > > ```
> > > Also, I have a question for those who knew Bill.
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Did Bill ever speak to Norbert Weiner about PCT? Weiner died in
> > > '64.
>
> >
>
> > Can’t help you there.
> >
> > ```
> > Martin
> >
> > ```
>
> ```
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Martin
>
> ```
>
> Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> wrote:
>
> > ```
> > [Martin Taylor
> >
> > ```
> >
> > 2014.08.16.23.33]
> >
> > ```
> > On 2014/08/16 6:59 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
> >
> > ```
> >
> > wrote:
>
> > > ```
> > > To which article were you referring to
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > that discussed the laws of thermodynamics?
>
> > >
>
> > > Philip
> > >
> > > > ```
> > > > [Martin
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > Taylor 2104.08.16.17.03]
>
> > > > ```
> > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> > > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > [Martin
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
> > … the Int. J. Human
> > Computer Studies special
> > issue on PCT (1999, vol
> > 50) and read the
> > Editorial.
>
> > ```
> > Martin
> >
> > ```
---
### Author:  [@wmansell](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/wmansell)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2014, 12:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/12 "2014-08-18T12:09:14Z")
Hi everyone, here it is. Thank you for introducing us to this excellent paper Martin!
Warren
[EditorialMartinTaylor.pdf](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/short-url/sCmyfrM6SX301cM200FVaaeYsRt.pdf) (106 KB)
> **···**
>
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:47 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
>
> > Cheers
>
> –
> Dr Warren Mansell
> Reader in Clinical Psychology
> School of Psychological Sciences
> Coupland I
> University of Manchester
>
> Oxford Road
> Manchester M13 9PL
> Email: [warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk](mailto:warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk)
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
>
> Website: [http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406](http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406)
>
> See [teamstrial.net](http://teamstrial.net) for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England
>
> The highly acclaimed therapy manual on [A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transdiagnostic-Approach-Method-Levels-Therapy/dp/0415507642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351756948&sr=8-1) is available now.
>
> Check [www.pctweb.org](http://www.pctweb.org) for further information on Perceptual Control Theory
>
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
>
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.08.17.08.35]
> >
> > ```
> > On 2014/08/17 4:52 AM, PHILIP JERAIR
> >
> > ```
> >
> > YERANOSIAN wrote:
>
> > > Do you have a copy, Martin?
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > I believe I have some paper reprints somewhere. I ought to have an
> >
> > ```
> >
> > electronic copy of the printed version of all the papers in the
> > issue, but the last time I looked for one of them I could find only
> > draft versions of some of them. Indeed, I have a vague memory that I
> > only ever had paper copies for some of them. The final versions that
> > must have gone to the publisher seem to have got lost in the
> > sequence of changes of computer, or perhaps I saw some of them only
> > on paper.
> >
> > ```
> > I could send you a draft version of the Editorial when I get home,
> >
> > ```
> >
> > in a few days.
> >
> > > ```
> > > Also, I have a question for those who knew Bill.
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Did Bill ever speak to Norbert Weiner about PCT? Weiner died in
> > > '64.
>
> >
>
> > Can’t help you there.
> >
> > ```
> > Martin
> >
> > ```
>
> ```
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Martin
>
> ```
>
> Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> wrote:
>
> > ```
> > [Martin Taylor
> >
> > ```
> >
> > 2014.08.16.23.33]
> >
> > ```
> > On 2014/08/16 6:59 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
> >
> > ```
> >
> > wrote:
>
> > > ```
> > > To which article were you referring to
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > that discussed the laws of thermodynamics?
>
> > >
>
> > > Philip
> > >
> > > > ```
> > > > [Martin
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > Taylor 2104.08.16.17.03]
>
> > > > ```
> > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> > > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > [Martin
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
> > … the Int. J. Human
> > Computer Studies special
> > issue on PCT (1999, vol
> > 50) and read the
> > Editorial.
>
> > ```
> > Martin
> >
> > ```
---
### Author:  [@FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/FredNickols)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/13 "2014-08-18T17:58:46Z")
[From Fred Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)]
Yes, thanks, Martin. I was especially taken by the alternate PCT motto: “Many means to the same end; many ends by the same means.”
That said, I am unclear as to the link between your editorial and thermodynamics. I’m probably missing something.
Fred Nickols
> **···**
>
> **From:** Warren Mansell [[mailto:wmansell@gmail.com](mailto:wmansell@gmail.com)]
> **Sent:** Monday, August 18, 2014 8:09 AM
> **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
> **Subject:** Re: Thermodynamics
>
> Hi everyone, here it is. Thank you for introducing us to this excellent paper Martin!
>
> Warren
>
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:47 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
>
> Cheers
>
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
>
> [Martin Taylor 2014.08.17.08.35]
>
> On 2014/08/17 4:52 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN wrote:
>
> > Do you have a copy, Martin?
>
> I believe I have some paper reprints somewhere. I ought to have an electronic copy of the printed version of all the papers in the issue, but the last time I looked for one of them I could find only draft versions of some of them. Indeed, I have a vague memory that I only ever had paper copies for some of them. The final versions that must have gone to the publisher seem to have got lost in the sequence of changes of computer, or perhaps I saw some of them only on paper.
>
> I could send you a draft version of the Editorial when I get home, in a few days.
>
> Also, I have a question for those who knew Bill. Did Bill ever speak to Norbert Weiner about PCT? Weiner died in '64.
>
> Can’t help you there.
>
> Martin
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
>
> [Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.23.33]
>
> On 2014/08/16 6:59 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN wrote:
>
> > To which article were you referring to that discussed the laws of thermodynamics?
>
> > Philip
>
> > > [Martin Taylor 2104.08.16.17.03]
>
> > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
>
> > > > > > [Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
>
> > > > > > … the Int. J. Human Computer Studies special issue on PCT (1999, vol 50) and read the Editorial.
>
> > > > > > Martin
>
> –
>
> Dr Warren Mansell
> Reader in Clinical Psychology
> School of Psychological Sciences
> Coupland I
> University of Manchester
> Oxford Road
> Manchester M13 9PL
> Email: [warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk](mailto:warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk)
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
>
> Website: [http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406](http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406)
>
> See [teamstrial.net](http://teamstrial.net) for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England
>
> The highly acclaimed therapy manual on [A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transdiagnostic-Approach-Method-Levels-Therapy/dp/0415507642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351756948&sr=8-1) is available now.
>
> Check [www.pctweb.org](http://www.pctweb.org) for further information on Perceptual Control Theory
---
### Author:  [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2014, 1:38am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/14 "2014-08-19T01:38:43Z")
[Martin Taylor 2014.08.18.21.36]
```
Section 2, especially the first half. I suppose it could be expanded
```
into a multi-page mathematical exposition, but those three
paragraphs carry the essence, and say why PCT MUST be correct, if
the laws of thermodynamics are.
Martin
> **···**
>
> > ```
> > [From
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Fred Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)]
>
> > ```
> > Yes,
> >
> > ```
> >
> > thanks, Martin. I was especially taken by the alternate PCT
> > motto: “ Many means
> > to the same end; many ends by the same means.”
>
> > ```
> > That
> >
> > ```
> >
> > said, I am unclear as to the link between your editorial and
> > thermodynamics. I’m probably missing something.
>
> > ```
> > Fred
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Nickols
>
> >
---
### Author:  [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2014, 2:16am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/15 "2014-08-19T02:16:12Z")
[From Rick Marken (2014.08.18.1915)]
> **···**
>
> Warren Mansell wrote:
>
> > WM: Hi everyone, here it is. Thank you for introducing us to this excellent paper Martin!
>
> Thanks for posting it Warren (even though I have a hardcopy of it on my shelf). It is an excellent paper indeed!
>
> > Fred Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)–
>
> >
>
> > FN: That said, I am unclear as to the link between your editorial and thermodynamics. I’m probably missing something.
>
> RM: Here’s the relevant quote. It’s in the section entitled “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”
>
> > MT: “Our bodies are thermodynamically unstable, and decay away as soon as we cease to act to counter the infuences that would destroy us. Every living thing has ancestors all of whom behaved so that they stabilized their internal chemistry at least long enough to propagate their genes”.
>
> RM: Martin is arguing that PCT is a “necessary” theory because if organisms were not organized as perceptual control systems they would move, per the second law of thermodynamics, toward a state of maximum entropy (disorder); that is, they would disintegrate. I like this argument because it is saying that there is a phenomenon to be explained and that PCT is necessary to explain it. The phenomenon is “negentropy” which is essentially the same as the phenomenon of control.
>
> RM: But I also dislike this argument because I think it is too limited. It is limited to the “thermodynamics” of a system, which mainly involve the “internal chemistry” of the organism (as Martin notes in the quote above). In this internal chemistry world variables like body temperature – which is just molecular motion – will move toward a state of increasing entropy if nothing is done about it; the “laws of thermodynamics” are the main “disturbance” to the states of these variables and a control organization – a negentropy system - is needed to maintain these variables at a constant level of entropy.
>
> RM: But PCT applies not only at the “internal chemistry” level but also at the behavioral level – the level of where the variables that are controlled are not biochemical but perceptual/informational. So at the behavioral level we control variables like our relationships to other people and our political and religious commitments – variables that are totally abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not thermodynamic/entropic; they can be but they are often more abstract, such as words (like “I think your ideas are wrong”) or changes in visual configurations ( as when your loved one walks away in a huff).
>
> RM: So I like the idea of having a section of the paper on “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”. But I would rather that the sectoin would have said that PCT is a theory that is “necessary” in order to explain the phenomenon of _control_, a phenomenon that we see as purposeful behavior.
>
> RM: By the way, I think the thermodynamic “necessity” of control theory has been long recognized in biology/physiology in the idea that the “internal chemistry” of the body is maintained in goal states by a process of control called “homoeostasis”. PCT takes the idea of “homeostasis” _outside the body_, so to speak, into the world of purposeful behavior in the external environment.
>
> Best regards
>
> Rick
>
> –
> Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
>
> Author of [Doing Research on Purpose](http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose).
> Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
---
### Author:  [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2014, 3:38am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/16 "2014-08-19T03:38:05Z")
[Martin Taylor 2014.08.18.22.59]
```
That's one sentence out of three paragraphs of relevant quote. But
```
from what you say next, I guess I should have made it three or
thirty pages. I thought I covered everything you mention below, but
I guess it should have been more explicitly boring.
(I don’t understand that comment; the “main disturbances” to the
system are not any laws of nature, but events originating outside
the organism that would affect states inside the system were they
not blocked or countered. Such as the examples in your next
paragraph.)
All of which is covered in the Editorial, if not in explicit detail.
If an event outside can change the state of something inside, the
odds are astronomically in favour of the change being in the
direction of increasing entropy. The examples you use are certainly
in that category.
“Control” IS the phenomenon described. It IS what is shown to be
necessary. The word Perceptual IS shown to be important. PCT isn’t
necessary to _explain_ the phenomenon of control; it’s a description
of the process of control… No, that;'s nonsense. Homeostasis is no more than the kind of
self-organization that is seen in a stream vortex. Yes, it’s
consistent with thermodynamic laws. No, it’s not control, though
many, many, physiological processes ARE control loops that
stabilize some variable.
PCT and homeostasis are conceptually quite distinct. I do believe
that life, in the sense of perceptual control systems that produce
descendants, originally evolved out of homeostatic systems, but
that’s just a hunch. Besides, PCT works inside and outside the body. Where you have
control you have perceptual control. Where you only have homeostasis
(which can equally involve loops that pass outside the body) you
just have a negative feedback loop sustained by an external energy
supply.
Martin
> **···**
>
> On 2014/08/18 10:16 PM, Richard Marken
> wrote:
>
> > [From Rick Marken
> > (2014.08.18.1915)]
>
> > Warren Mansell
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > ```
> > > WM:
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Hi everyone, here it is. Thank you for introducing us to
> > > this excellent paper Martin!
>
> > Thanks for posting it Warren (even though I have a hardcopy
> > of it on my shelf). It is an excellent paper
> > indeed!
>
> >
>
> > > ```
> > > Fred
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)–
>
> > >
>
> > > ```
> > > FN:
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > That said, I am unclear as to the link between your
> > > editorial and thermodynamics. I’m probably missing
> > > something.
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > RM: Here's the relevant quote. It's in the section
> >
> > ```
> >
> > entitled “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”
>
> >
>
> > > ```
> > > MT:
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > “Our bodies are thermodynamically unstable, and decay away
> > > as soon as we cease to act to counter the infuences that
> > > would destroy us. Every living thing has ancestors all of
> > > whom behaved so that they stabilized their internal
> > > chemistry at least long enough to propagate their genes”.
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > RM: Martin is arguing that PCT is a "necessary" theory
> >
> > ```
> >
> > because if organisms were not organized as perceptual
> > control systems they would move, per the second law of
> > thermodynamics, toward a state of maximum entropy
> > (disorder); that is, they would disintegrate. I like this
> > argument because it is saying that there is a phenomenon
> > to be explained and that PCT is necessary to explain it.
> > The phenomenon is "negentropy "
> > which is essentially the same as the phenomenon of
> > control.
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > RM: But I also dislike this argument because I think it
> >
> > ```
> >
> > is too limited. It is limited to the “thermodynamics” of a
> > system, which mainly involve the “internal chemistry” of
> > the organism (as Martin notes in the quote above). In this
> > internal chemistry world variables like body temperature
> > – which is just molecular motion – will move toward a
> > state of increasing entropy if nothing is done about it;
> > the “laws of thermodynamics” are the main “disturbance” to
> > the states of these variables and a control organization
>
> > – a negentropy
> > system - is needed to maintain these variables at a
> > constant level of entropy.
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > RM: But PCT applies not only at the "internal
> >
> > ```
> >
> > chemistry" level but also at the behavioral level – the
> > level of where the variables that are controlled are not
> > biochemical but perceptual/informational. So at the
> > behavioral level we control variables like our
> > relationships to other people and our political and
> > religious commitments – variables that are totally
> > abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not
> > thermodynamic/entropic; they can be but they are often
> > more abstract, such as words (like “I think your ideas are
> > wrong”) or changes in visual configurations ( as when your
> > loved one walks away in a huff).
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > RM: So I like the idea of having a section of the paper
> >
> > ```
> >
> > on “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”. But I
> > would rather that the sectoin would have said that PCT is
> > a theory that is “necessary” in order to explain the
> > phenomenon of _control_ , a phenomenon that we see as
> > purposeful behavior.
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > RM: By the way, I think the thermodynamic "necessity"
> >
> > ```
> >
> > of control theory has been long recognized in
> > biology/physiology in the idea that the “internal
> > chemistry” of the body is maintained in goal states by a
> > process of control called “homoeostasis”.
>
> > PCT takes the idea of “homeostasis” \* outside the
> > body\* , so to speak, into the world of purposeful
> > behavior in the external environment.
>
> >
>
> > Best regards
>
> >
>
> > Rick
>
> > –
> > Richard S. Marken ,
> > Ph.D.
> >
> > ```
> > Author of [Doing Research on Purpose](http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose).
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
---
### Author:  [@PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2014, 5:21am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/17 "2014-08-19T05:21:35Z")
[Philip 8.18.2014 8:32 PM]
Rick:
But PCT applies not only at the “internal chemistry” level but also at the behavioral level – the level of where the variables that are controlled are not biochemical but perceptual/informational…
Philip:
How exactly do you mean to distinguish between biochemical and perceptual/informational variables?
Rick:
So at the behavioral level we control variables like our relationships to other people and our political and religious commitments – variables that are totally abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not thermodynamic/entropic;
they can be but they are often more abstract, such as words…
Philip:
Be informed that the concept of entropy in communications engineering and the concept of entropy in thermodynamics are incommensurable.
From the point of view of communication, “I think your ideas are wrong”, would be a string of words translated into a pulsed output electrically conducted through a wire (i.e. an ‘information communications channel’). The channel capacity of this communications channel would determine the maximum rate at which this message can be “errorlessly transmitted” (i.e. transmitted at a bit-rate at which errors can be detected and corrected by the receiver). The value of this channel capacity function is determined by a process known as ‘hyperquantization’, which is the language-encoding scheme (i.e. the function which maps words to symbols, and thus determines the inherent amount of information any symbol can contain, and by extension, the amount of information any word in any language would statistically contain). Then we get into ergodic theory, which is Weiner’s brainchild. Ergodic theory was used to describe the statistical properties of a message which is essentially infinitely long - i.e. every word contains an infinite number of symbols, because the amount of information contained in each symbol is made infinitesimal. This theoretic technique is used to establish a calculus for the quantification of the channel capacity. So, in communications engineering, the term ‘entropy’ is used to define a measure of the amount of information in a communicated message, and this particular definition of entropy is realized through the definition of the channel capacity itself. Basically, everything about channel capacity is about trying to say that the higher the ‘entropy of a communicated message’ is, the higher is the probablity that the receiver will receive a message which is different than what the sender intended to communicate - except for the special case when the message is transmitted at a bit-rate LOWER than the channel capacity of the communications channel. If the message is transmitted at a rate below the channel capacity then message can be sent with a probability of error which can be made arbitrarily close to zero. So entropy and the channel capacity essentially defines the amount of time required to errorlessly transmit a message at a particular bit rate by exactly quantifying the minimum number of symbols required to transmit a given number of words of a language in a specific amount of time. In thermodynamics, the concept of entropy is often connotated with a measure of disorder, but information is not defined in thermodynamics or physics or biology as it is in communications engineering. So my point is to bring up the following question: when you bring in the concept of a ‘word’ causing a disturbance, what exactly does this mean? What is the controlled variable? What is the disturbance? Is it the word itself, is it the entropy of the communication itself?
visual configurations. We can talk about shapes instead of words. The relation between geometry and language. Of course, you have the DNA (language) → protein (geometry) transformation. We know, naturally, that process of protein translation must be rate-limited by the translation-error-correction capacity of the cell. Research suggests that the cell may establish a certain measure of control over its translation error rate. The cell obviously doesn’t perceive the proteins translation error itself. So what is the controlled variable, and how does this variable exist in a closed loop negative feedback relationship with the envirionment?
Philip
> **···**
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
>
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.08.18.22.59]
> >
> > ```
> > On 2014/08/18 10:16 PM, Richard Marken
> >
> > ```
> >
> > wrote:
>
> > > [From Rick Marken
> > > (2014.08.18.1915)]
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > That's one sentence out of three paragraphs of relevant quote. But
> >
> > ```
> >
> > from what you say next, I guess I should have made it three or
> > thirty pages. I thought I covered everything you mention below, but
> > I guess it should have been more explicitly boring.
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > (I don't understand that comment; the "main disturbances" to the
> >
> > ```
> >
> > system are not any laws of nature, but events originating outside
> > the organism that would affect states inside the system were they
> > not blocked or countered. Such as the examples in your next
> > paragraph.)
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > All of which is covered in the Editorial, if not in explicit detail.
> >
> > ```
> >
> > If an event outside can change the state of something inside, the
> > odds are astronomically in favour of the change being in the
> > direction of increasing entropy. The examples you use are certainly
> > in that category.
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > "Control" IS the phenomenon described. It IS what is shown to be
> >
> > ```
> >
> > necessary. The word Perceptual IS shown to be important. PCT isn’t
> > necessary to _explain_ the phenomenon of control; it’s a description
> > of the process of control…
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > No, that;'s nonsense. Homeostasis is no more than the kind of
> >
> > ```
> >
> > self-organization that is seen in a stream vortex. Yes, it’s
> > consistent with thermodynamic laws. No, it’s not control, though
> > many, many, physiological processes ARE control loops that
> > stabilize some variable.
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > PCT and homeostasis are conceptually quite distinct. I do believe
> >
> > ```
> >
> > that life, in the sense of perceptual control systems that produce
> > descendants, originally evolved out of homeostatic systems, but
> > that’s just a hunch.
> >
> > ```
> > Besides, PCT works inside and outside the body. Where you have
> >
> > ```
> >
> > control you have perceptual control. Where you only have homeostasis
> > (which can equally involve loops that pass outside the body) you
> > just have a negative feedback loop sustained by an external energy
> > supply.
> >
> > ```
> > Martin
> >
> > ```
>
> >
>
> Warren Mansell
> wrote:
>
> > ```
> > WM:
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Hi everyone, here it is. Thank you for introducing us to
> > this excellent paper Martin!
>
> Thanks for posting it Warren (even though I have a hardcopy
> of it on my shelf). It is an excellent paper
> indeed!
>
> > ```
> > Fred
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)–
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > FN:
> >
> > ```
> >
> > That said, I am unclear as to the link between your
> > editorial and thermodynamics. I’m probably missing
> > something.
>
> ```
> RM: Here's the relevant quote. It's in the section
>
> ```
>
> entitled “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”
>
> > ```
> > MT:
> >
> > ```
> >
> > “Our bodies are thermodynamically unstable, and decay away
> > as soon as we cease to act to counter the infuences that
> > would destroy us. Every living thing has ancestors all of
> > whom behaved so that they stabilized their internal
> > chemistry at least long enough to propagate their genes”.
>
> ```
> RM: Martin is arguing that PCT is a "necessary" theory
>
> ```
>
> because if organisms were not organized as perceptual
> control systems they would move, per the second law of
> thermodynamics, toward a state of maximum entropy
> (disorder); that is, they would disintegrate. I like this
> argument because it is saying that there is a phenomenon
> to be explained and that PCT is necessary to explain it.
> The phenomenon is "negentropy "
> which is essentially the same as the phenomenon of
> control.
>
> ```
> RM: But I also dislike this argument because I think it
>
> ```
>
> is too limited. It is limited to the “thermodynamics” of a
> system, which mainly involve the “internal chemistry” of
> the organism (as Martin notes in the quote above). In this
> internal chemistry world variables like body temperature
> – which is just molecular motion – will move toward a
> state of increasing entropy if nothing is done about it;
> the “laws of thermodynamics” are the main “disturbance” to
> the states of these variables and a control organization
>
> – a negentropy
> system - is needed to maintain these variables at a
> constant level of entropy.
>
> ```
> RM: But PCT applies not only at the "internal
>
> ```
>
> chemistry" level but also at the behavioral level – the
> level of where the variables that are controlled are not
> biochemical but perceptual/informational. So at the
> behavioral level we control variables like our
> relationships to other people and our political and
> religious commitments – variables that are totally
> abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not
> thermodynamic/entropic; they can be but they are often
> more abstract, such as words (like “I think your ideas are
> wrong”) or changes in visual configurations ( as when your
> loved one walks away in a huff).
>
> ```
> RM: So I like the idea of having a section of the paper
>
> ```
>
> on “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”. But I
> would rather that the sectoin would have said that PCT is
> a theory that is “necessary” in order to explain the
> phenomenon of _control_ , a phenomenon that we see as
> purposeful behavior.
>
> ```
> RM: By the way, I think the thermodynamic "necessity"
>
> ```
>
> of control theory has been long recognized in
> biology/physiology in the idea that the “internal
> chemistry” of the body is maintained in goal states by a
> process of control called “homoeostasis”.
>
> PCT takes the idea of “homeostasis” \* outside the
> body\* , so to speak, into the world of purposeful
> behavior in the external environment.
>
> Best regards
>
> Rick
>
> –
> Richard S. Marken ,
> Ph.D.
>
> ```
> Author of [Doing Research on Purpose](http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose).
>
> ```
>
> Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
---
### Author:  [@PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2014, 5:33am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/18 "2014-08-19T05:33:47Z")
[Philip 8.18.2014 10:32 PM]
Martin:
The "error’’ is the diference, not between the actual aiming direction and the desired
aiming direction, but between the perception of the aiming direction and its reference
value. It is always perceptions that are controlled, never the outer world states to which
they correspond, even though it is the true values of the outer world states that are
important. The actions of the controller can influence the true values, but it is the
perceptual values derived from the sensors that are compared with the desired values and
controlled. The true values are unknowable, and therefore uncontrollable.
Philip:
Martin, can you comment on what you mean to emphasize by the last sentence here?
> **···**
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:21 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
>
> > [Philip 8.18.2014 8:32 PM]
>
> >
>
> > Rick:
>
> > But PCT applies not only at the “internal chemistry” level but also at the behavioral level – the level of where the variables that are controlled are not biochemical but perceptual/informational…
>
> >
>
> > Philip:
>
> > How exactly do you mean to distinguish between biochemical and perceptual/informational variables?
>
> >
>
> > Rick:
>
> > So at the behavioral level we control variables like our relationships to other people and our political and religious commitments – variables that are totally abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not thermodynamic/entropic;
>
> > they can be but they are often more abstract, such as words…
>
> >
>
> > Philip:
>
> > Be informed that the concept of entropy in communications engineering and the concept of entropy in thermodynamics are incommensurable.
>
> >
>
> > From the point of view of communication, “I think your ideas are wrong”, would be a string of words translated into a pulsed output electrically conducted through a wire (i.e. an ‘information communications channel’). The channel capacity of this communications channel would determine the maximum rate at which this message can be “errorlessly transmitted” (i.e. transmitted at a bit-rate at which errors can be detected and corrected by the receiver). The value of this channel capacity function is determined by a process known as ‘hyperquantization’, which is the language-encoding scheme (i.e. the function which maps words to symbols, and thus determines the inherent amount of information any symbol can contain, and by extension, the amount of information any word in any language would statistically contain). Then we get into ergodic theory, which is Weiner’s brainchild. Ergodic theory was used to describe the statistical properties of a message which is essentially infinitely long - i.e. every word contains an infinite number of symbols, because the amount of information contained in each symbol is made infinitesimal. This theoretic technique is used to establish a calculus for the quantification of the channel capacity. So, in communications engineering, the term ‘entropy’ is used to define a measure of the amount of information in a communicated message, and this particular definition of entropy is realized through the definition of the channel capacity itself. Basically, everything about channel capacity is about trying to say that the higher the ‘entropy of a communicated message’ is, the higher is the probablity that the receiver will receive a message which is different than what the sender intended to communicate - except for the special case when the message is transmitted at a bit-rate LOWER than the channel capacity of the communications channel. If the message is transmitted at a rate below the channel capacity then message can be sent with a probability of error which can be made arbitrarily close to zero. So entropy and the channel capacity essentially defines the amount of time required to errorlessly transmit a message at a particular bit rate by exactly quantifying the minimum number of symbols required to transmit a given number of words of a language in a specific amount of time. In thermodynamics, the concept of entropy is often connotated with a measure of disorder, but information is not defined in thermodynamics or physics or biology as it is in communications engineering. So my point is to bring up the following question: when you bring in the concept of a ‘word’ causing a disturbance, what exactly does this mean? What is the controlled variable? What is the disturbance? Is it the word itself, is it the entropy of the communication itself?
>
> >
>
> > visual configurations. We can talk about shapes instead of words. The relation between geometry and language. Of course, you have the DNA (language) → protein (geometry) transformation. We know, naturally, that process of protein translation must be rate-limited by the translation-error-correction capacity of the cell. Research suggests that the cell may establish a certain measure of control over its translation error rate. The cell obviously doesn’t perceive the proteins translation error itself. So what is the controlled variable, and how does this variable exist in a closed loop negative feedback relationship with the envirionment?
>
> >
>
> > Philip
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
>
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.08.18.22.59]
> >
> > ```
> > On 2014/08/18 10:16 PM, Richard Marken
> >
> > ```
> >
> > wrote:
>
> > > [From Rick Marken
> > > (2014.08.18.1915)]
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > That's one sentence out of three paragraphs of relevant quote. But
> >
> > ```
> >
> > from what you say next, I guess I should have made it three or
> > thirty pages. I thought I covered everything you mention below, but
> > I guess it should have been more explicitly boring.
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > (I don't understand that comment; the "main disturbances" to the
> >
> > ```
> >
> > system are not any laws of nature, but events originating outside
> > the organism that would affect states inside the system were they
> > not blocked or countered. Such as the examples in your next
> > paragraph.)
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > All of which is covered in the Editorial, if not in explicit detail.
> >
> > ```
> >
> > If an event outside can change the state of something inside, the
> > odds are astronomically in favour of the change being in the
> > direction of increasing entropy. The examples you use are certainly
> > in that category.
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > "Control" IS the phenomenon described. It IS what is shown to be
> >
> > ```
> >
> > necessary. The word Perceptual IS shown to be important. PCT isn’t
> > necessary to _explain_ the phenomenon of control; it’s a description
> > of the process of control…
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > No, that;'s nonsense. Homeostasis is no more than the kind of
> >
> > ```
> >
> > self-organization that is seen in a stream vortex. Yes, it’s
> > consistent with thermodynamic laws. No, it’s not control, though
> > many, many, physiological processes ARE control loops that
> > stabilize some variable.
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > PCT and homeostasis are conceptually quite distinct. I do believe
> >
> > ```
> >
> > that life, in the sense of perceptual control systems that produce
> > descendants, originally evolved out of homeostatic systems, but
> > that’s just a hunch.
> >
> > ```
> > Besides, PCT works inside and outside the body. Where you have
> >
> > ```
> >
> > control you have perceptual control. Where you only have homeostasis
> > (which can equally involve loops that pass outside the body) you
> > just have a negative feedback loop sustained by an external energy
> > supply.
> >
> > ```
> > Martin
> >
> > ```
>
> >
>
> Warren Mansell
> wrote:
>
> > ```
> > WM:
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Hi everyone, here it is. Thank you for introducing us to
> > this excellent paper Martin!
>
> Thanks for posting it Warren (even though I have a hardcopy
> of it on my shelf). It is an excellent paper
> indeed!
>
> > ```
> > Fred
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)–
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > FN:
> >
> > ```
> >
> > That said, I am unclear as to the link between your
> > editorial and thermodynamics. I’m probably missing
> > something.
>
> ```
> RM: Here's the relevant quote. It's in the section
>
> ```
>
> entitled “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”
>
> > ```
> > MT:
> >
> > ```
> >
> > “Our bodies are thermodynamically unstable, and decay away
> > as soon as we cease to act to counter the infuences that
> > would destroy us. Every living thing has ancestors all of
> > whom behaved so that they stabilized their internal
> > chemistry at least long enough to propagate their genes”.
>
> ```
> RM: Martin is arguing that PCT is a "necessary" theory
>
> ```
>
> because if organisms were not organized as perceptual
> control systems they would move, per the second law of
> thermodynamics, toward a state of maximum entropy
> (disorder); that is, they would disintegrate. I like this
> argument because it is saying that there is a phenomenon
> to be explained and that PCT is necessary to explain it.
> The phenomenon is "negentropy "
> which is essentially the same as the phenomenon of
> control.
>
> ```
> RM: But I also dislike this argument because I think it
>
> ```
>
> is too limited. It is limited to the “thermodynamics” of a
> system, which mainly involve the “internal chemistry” of
> the organism (as Martin notes in the quote above). In this
> internal chemistry world variables like body temperature
> – which is just molecular motion – will move toward a
> state of increasing entropy if nothing is done about it;
> the “laws of thermodynamics” are the main “disturbance” to
> the states of these variables and a control organization
>
> – a negentropy
> system - is needed to maintain these variables at a
> constant level of entropy.
>
> ```
> RM: But PCT applies not only at the "internal
>
> ```
>
> chemistry" level but also at the behavioral level – the
> level of where the variables that are controlled are not
> biochemical but perceptual/informational. So at the
> behavioral level we control variables like our
> relationships to other people and our political and
> religious commitments – variables that are totally
> abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not
> thermodynamic/entropic; they can be but they are often
> more abstract, such as words (like “I think your ideas are
> wrong”) or changes in visual configurations ( as when your
> loved one walks away in a huff).
>
> ```
> RM: So I like the idea of having a section of the paper
>
> ```
>
> on “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”. But I
> would rather that the sectoin would have said that PCT is
> a theory that is “necessary” in order to explain the
> phenomenon of _control_ , a phenomenon that we see as
> purposeful behavior.
>
> ```
> RM: By the way, I think the thermodynamic "necessity"
>
> ```
>
> of control theory has been long recognized in
> biology/physiology in the idea that the “internal
> chemistry” of the body is maintained in goal states by a
> process of control called “homoeostasis”.
>
> PCT takes the idea of “homeostasis” \* outside the
> body\* , so to speak, into the world of purposeful
> behavior in the external environment.
>
> Best regards
>
> Rick
>
> –
> Richard S. Marken ,
> Ph.D.
>
> ```
> Author of [Doing Research on Purpose](http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose).
>
> ```
>
> Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
---
### Author:  [@rupert](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rupert)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2014, 9:58am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/19 "2014-08-19T09:58:23Z")
[Rupert Young (2014.08.19 11.00)]
Yes, very interesting read.
I'm not familiar with Aristotle, could you point me towards relevant quotes of his?
Also could someone remind of where the James quote regarding Romeo and Juliet is in the PCT literature?
Regards,
Rupert
> **···**
>
> On 19/08/2014 02:38, Martin Taylor wrote:
>
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.08.18.21.36]
> >
> > > [From Fred Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)]
>
> > >
>
> > > Yes, thanks, Martin. I was especially taken by the alternate PCT motto: Many means to the same end; many ends by the same means.
>
> > >
>
> > > That said, I am unclear as to the link between your editorial and thermodynamics. Im probably missing something.
>
> > >
>
> > > Fred Nickols
>
> > Section 2, especially the first half. I suppose it could be expanded into a multi-page mathematical exposition, but those three paragraphs carry the essence, and say why PCT MUST be correct, if the laws of thermodynamics are.
> >
> > Martin
---
### Author:  [@rupert](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rupert)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2014, 10:37am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580/20 "2014-08-19T10:37:03Z")
Is there a distinct boundary? Ultimately, is not the function of
perceptual control, at the behavioural level, to acquire energy so
that the internal variables can be maintained? And the process of
evolution produces additional levels of control that give
flexibility in a competitive environment. Humans are “just” very
flexible energy acquirers, and although the controlled variables
(which are all inside the body) may be abstract they arose in the
context of a system that evolved to acquire energy, and maintain
internal chemistry.
Regards,
Rupert
> **···**
>
> [Rupert Young (2014.08.19 11.30)]
>
> > On 19/08/2014 03:16, Richard Marken wrote:
> >
> > ```
> > RM: But I also dislike this argument because I think it
> >
> > ```
> >
> > is too limited. It is limited to the “thermodynamics” of a
> > system, which mainly involve the “internal chemistry” of
> > the organism (as Martin notes in the quote above). In this
> > internal chemistry world variables like body temperature
> > – which is just molecular motion – will move toward a
> > state of increasing entropy if nothing is done about it;
> > the “laws of thermodynamics” are the main “disturbance” to
> > the states of these variables and a control organization
> > – a negentropy
> > system - is needed to maintain these variables at a
> > constant level of entropy.
>
> >
>
> > ```
> > RM: But PCT applies not only at the "internal
> >
> > ```
> >
> > chemistry" level but also at the behavioral level – the
> > level of where the variables that are controlled are not
> > biochemical but perceptual/informational. So at the
> > behavioral level we control variables like our
> > relationships to other people and our political and
> > religious commitments – variables that are totally
> > abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not
> > thermodynamic/entropic; they can be but they are often
> > more abstract, such as words (like “I think your ideas are
> > wrong”) or changes in visual configurations ( as when your
> > loved one walks away in a huff).
[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thermodynamics/11580.md?page=2)