# thinking in circles **URL:** \ **Category:** CSG1992\ **Created:** [June 5, 1992, 3:19pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thinking-in-circles/15239 "1992-06-05T15:19:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 1992, 3:19pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/thinking-in-circles/15239/1 "1992-06-05T15:19:41Z")

[From: Bruce Nevin (Fri 92045 10:53:30)] (Gary Cziko 920605.0900) -- > Looking over my question again, I am now amazed how I could have asked such > a question. I've seen and understood the equations. . . . > Yet in spite of all this and my desire to really understand PCT better, I > still ask this STUPID question. > This is really simple stuff compared to what the physicists do with quantum > mechanics and what the dynamical types do with chaos. And yet people like > me who really WANT to understand and aren't particularly dumb still have > problems with it. > At times like this I start to wonder if PCT will ever become widely > understood. I believe the conceptual boggle of "thinking in circles" is analogous to that experienced by people learning to program recursively. I suggest leaning on this analogy when communicating with AI types (or anyone who has learned LISP programming). \_The Little LISPer\_ illustrates I think a good way to present the fact that there is a conceptual difficulty here and how to get past it. I believe Winston's book on LISP also does. The kind of technical treatment that you see in e.g. Abelson & Sussman's \_Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs\_ is less apt because it takes the computer's point of view. Not to say or imply that I have the knack of thinking in circles yet! But I would point out that this is what the Buddhists mean by mutual causation. Bruce bn@bbn.com