What is revolutionary about PCT? (Part 1)

[Martin Taylor 2017.09.14.13.11]

PCT is revolutionary. Let's take that as a starting point. But what makes it so is less easy to understand.

One could look at the effects that might be expected if it was widely accepted. Would anything change much? If a lot of things would change drastically, then that would be a reason for calling it revolutionary. But if just slipping it in "under the hood" as it were, in the way one can change software modules without changing their interface to the world, should it then be called "revolutionary"? I think not. I can't prove it, but my belief is that PCT is revolutionary in this sense.

Another approach might be to consider whether acceptance of PCT would change ways of looking at problems in different domains that are usually considered unrelated. The "Behavioural Illusion" might flag this possibility. If effects are first examined as possibly being caused by people controlling certain perceptions, then approaches to solutions for problems created by those effects might be quite different from the approaches that treat people as pawns in a greater game. The "Behavioural illusion" is only one indicator of this possibility. Maybe PCT could offer an approach to solutions for problems that seem to have no solution. Then it would be revolutionary. I believe PCT is indeed revolutionary in this second sense, but again I can't prove it other than by pointing to a few examples, which really is no proof.

Yet a third approach (and the one that seems most persuasive to me) is the Ockham's Razor approach, which looks at the theory itself rather than its influence on the conceptual world in which it lives. I believe this one can be argued more rigorously as demonstrating the revolutionary nature of PCT.

(Part 2 explains this third approach)
Martin

[Martin Taylor 2017.09.16.12.14]

PCT is revolutionary. Let's take that as a starting point. But what makes it so is less easy to understand.

One could look at the effects that might be expected if it was widely accepted. Would anything change much? If a lot of things would change drastically, then that would be a reason for calling it revolutionary. But if just slipping it in "under the hood" as it were, in the way one can change software modules without changing their interface to the world, should it then be called "revolutionary"? I can't prove it, but my belief is that PCT is revolutionary in this sense.

(If this gets past the censors, I will try a similarly short Part 2. I have been trying for three days to send a message saying that there are at least three ways PCT is revolutionary, and explaining the third at some length, but I can't figure out what annoys the censors).

Martin