From [Marc Abrams (2006.06.24.0444)]
> FRom JImD (2006.06.24.???)
>You did not answer the question. It should be an easy one to answer for a master of both subjects. Please, give this ignorant fool at
least one example.
You don't and can't control the money supply in an economy. Again this shows a total lack of understanding about perceptual control and money and I am not in a position to help you with either one right now.
>B:CP All behavior is control of perception. Control of the money supply is control of the perceptions I can control. .Less money, less
opportunity to develope intrinsic error.
Whatever works for you.
>You have not said perceptual control, You have repeatedly said control. This is important.
Maybe to you it is, but in _this_ forum control= perceptual control, and perceptual control has a different meaning than how the word "control" is generally utilzed in more general discussions. So you bet its important and its significant that you don't know or understand the difference.
This is my gripe. On the SD site you use "control", not perceptual. In
private phone conversations with me you have adamantly said, which is the only way you have said anything, that perception is not important, its control.
_WHAT_??? You either need a new hearing aide or you need to listen a bit better. I have said it is _all_ perception. Indeed I have repeatedly said that.
In a post to Rick you said "it's all about control' This sounds a lot
different than an empasis on perceptual control via control of sensory
input which speaks of mechanism.
As I have also said repeatedly, I view perceptual control as a metaphor and it will remain one with me until we unravel and unlock the actual physiological mechanism's involved. I also said that this differs from the PCT perspective that views control as a blueprint for our brain and nervous system.
But this distinction hardly matters when discussing the importance of perceptual control on the organism and on society as a whole.
Indeed, how it happens is far less important to me than what actually does happen to the organism because of control.
In this forum control is short-handed for perceptual control and I do not differ with PCT on the importance of perceptual control to the organism. We simply have different ideas on how this all actually happens, not that it does in fact happen.
But you are right in saying the discussion over the past few days on econmics had little to do with perceptual control. As far as I can see it had nothing to do with perceptual control which is why I ended my participation in it.
It sounds questionable, It is too vague. So I question it Or maybe I'm
just not getting it. Maybe >perceptual control is about control.
I hate being harsh but I don't think you have 'gotten' it., but I don't think you are the main culprit here. I think the "discussions" on CSGnet are often very tangential to perceptual control and here is why I think that is the case.
The notion or concept that PCT is a blueprint of the brain has taken the control metaphor off the table in discussing PCT yet because of our lack of knowledge in the actual physiology of perceptual control, all the discussions on CSGnet revolve around the control metaphor and not strictly speaking PCT, as you say, the "mechanism's".
This always created a problem for me as well. At what level of abstraction is PCT supposed to represent? The theory and B:CP talk about the nicro-structures involved while the discussions on CSGnet talk about the control metaphor at the level of the organism.
But you can no more generalize about the behavior of control at the cellular level and speak about control at the organism level in the same any more than you can generalize about how a cell consumes its food and the effects of food on an organism.
The "economic" analysis by Rick is a great example of this equivocal use of control. Yes, aspects of the economy could definetly be a control process but is it perceptual control? Hardly. Perceptual control has to do with what happens inside of a single organism and with our ability to "correct" for descrepancy. Can you say that about an economy? I don't think so
Rick has used this control equivocality to launch into all kinds of things political, religous, and such, without ever touching on the significance any of it has for perceptual control, or perceptual control on it. All of his "explanations" are control _metaphors_, not even necessarily _perceptual_ control metaphors, and I find this confusing and self-defeating.
So if you are confused, join the crowd, I think you have good reason, but _)not_ because of my short-handed use of the word.
>In reviewing the posts over the past few days very little, if any, actual verbal tie in has been made >by anyone to perceptual control.
I agree, and it is one of the reasons I ended my involvement and I said as much.
> You have repeatedly used only the word control.
Again, my short-hand for perceptual control
>Stop putting on the dog.
Woof, Woof.
> was, I'm sorry. You might want to avail yourself of the material available > on the CSGnet website.
>What an actor
Sorry you feel that way.
>
>> If you are going to join a forum that discusses perceptual control you > should have some very basic notions of what that >>encompasses, or at least > what it is attempting to encompass
Bravo!
Good attitude, that'll get you places
What is it attempting to encompass? I thought it was purposefull
behavior. What is your purpose in ommitting the word perception so
often, except when you criticise me.
Please, don't shoot the messanger. I am not at fault because you failed to clarify for yourself on what certain things mean. You might do beter asking questions that might help you clarify _BEFORE_ you go off on someone and you might become familiar with the conventions used in any forum before deciding for yourself what something does or does not mean.
I thought it encompassed behavior, like in providing for my family by
going to work and making money. Which I can do only if there is >enough to be had.
Your understanding of where our money supply comes from and how it is regulated needs a bit of work. Here is a good example of the "confusion" Tracy Harms was addressing in terms of economic "facts" vs. the "values" we hold about economic concepts
Money has a great many "meanings" and significance for many people in different ways but the economic facts about it are a bit different and you seem to have merged the two.
>Who controls the money supply control perceptions.
It is statements like this that show your lack of understanding about both money and perceptual control. If you are talking about whoever controls _your_ personal supply of money, controls _your_ perceptions _than_ we might discuss the reasons for this from a perceptual control perspective. But only as it relates to _your_ ability to control _your_ perceptions. Unless you have data that shows this claim applicable to others. Any talk about money supply and an economy has nothing to do with perceptual control directly.
But we must remeber that an "economy" is nothing more than a bunch of individuals, so the question of money supply and perceptual control is not as far fetched as it may seem, but not based on aggregated index's.
Is that enough tie in. Sounds like a pretty big tie in. A factual one,
but you >aren"t into facts, right?
What can you expect from a dog? Woof, woof.
···
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.