[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1219.1132)]
Bill Powers n(2004.12.19.0730 MST)
But this is an attempt to limit, not clarify, the domain, both unnecessarily and incorrectly. The domain of PCT is human experience. That includes both actions and the effects of actions; it includes both external and internal effects. It includes hierarchies of effects, in which one effect is produced by whatever action is necessary at the moment as a means of producing more general effects. It includes effects that are controlled and effects that are not controlled, as well as effects we experience that are caused and controlled by other organisms, or by non-sentient natural processes.
I stand corrected. You certainly have your work cut out for you.
[From Bill Powers (2004.12.19.1645 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (2004.1219.1132) --
I stand corrected. You certainly have your work cut out for you.
I'm not sure how you mean this. Do you think my vision of the scope of a
proper theory of human organization is too broad? Are there parts of it you
think I should leave out?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1220.0901)]
Bill Powers (2004.12.19.1645 MST)
Bruce Gregory (2004.1219.1132) --
I stand corrected. You certainly have your work cut out for you.
I'm not sure how you mean this. Do you think my vision of the scope of
a
proper theory of human organization is too broad? Are there parts of
it you
think I should leave out?
Your vision is certainly broad. I would not presume to tell you what
you should or should not leave out of it. Your vision is based on the
principle that all human experience can be understood in terms of
control theory. I am in no position to judge how realistic that
approach is.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
[From Fred Nickols (2004.12.20.0937)] --
I've been watching the exchange below and I certainly won't respond for Bill
and I'm not trying to nit-pick what Bruce wrote but I will toss out a
slightly different view of my own which I hope Bill will respond to as
well...
From Bruce Gregory (2004.1220.0901)]
Your vision is certainly broad. I would not presume to tell you what
you should or should not leave out of it. Your vision is based on the
principle that all human experience can be understood in terms of
control theory. I am in no position to judge how realistic that
approach is.
I've never thought of PCT as enabling me to understand "all human
experience." I just thought of it as enabling me to understand human
behavior.
So, does PCT encompass and account for "all human experience" or just "human
behavior"?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
[From Bill Powers (2004.12.20.0832 MST)]
Bruce Gregory
(2004.1220.0901)]
Your vision is certainly broad. I would not presume to tell you
what
you should or should not leave out of it. Your vision is based on
the
principle that all human experience can be understood in terms
of
control theory. I am in no position to judge how realistic
that
approach is.
Good. I;m glad you don’t object to any of my points.
Fred Nickols (2004.12.20.0937) –
So, does PCT encompass and
account for “all human experience” or just "human
behavior"?
To understand PCT we have to consider all of human experience, because
our purposes, intentions, desires, hopes, and wishes are drawn from every
aspect of human experience. And it’s only because we are organized from
the bottom up as a structure of control systems that we are able to
pursue such things – that such concepts even have any meaning.
Behavior is what other people can see us doing from the outside. That is
only a small part of the story. For each of us, what counts is not our
behavior but the control we have over what happens to us, our ability to
create an experienced world that matches what we want it to be. The only
time behavior matters is when the actions needed to control one
perception cause other perceptions to end up in undesired states. Even
then, it’s not the behavior that we care about, but its effects on our
experiences.
I am confident that as we learn more about how the body works we will
find that it is a hierarchy of control systems all the way to the level
of DNA, and that negative feedback control is the fundamental principle
that makes a living system of any species different from a collection of
chemical reactions in a test tube. I have already conjectured about how
the E. coli principle of evolution through random variation and
purposeful retention (to paraphrase Campbell) could account for the
origins not only of purpose, but of life, and for the processes of
evolution that followed the beginning.
So what does this picture leave out? Only consciousness. It contains all
the content of consciousness, but omits any explanation of what
it is that contains it. I am no closer to understanding consciousness or
awareness than I was at the age of 24 when this idea first took root in
my mind, planted by the early cyberneticists and control engineers.
Everything I have read since then tells me that nobody else understands
it, either.
Fred, I repeat my question to Bruce: what part of human experience do you
think I should leave out of this theory?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Fred Nickols (2004.12.20.1125 EST)] –
Bill: re your question below…
I wouldn’t presume to answer your
question – for a host of reasons. My earlier comment merely
reflected a potential error in my grasp of things and you have clarified that
for me.
However, I believe I can plug the hole you
expressed regarding consciousness. I don’t know about other people
but way down deep inside me, somewhere in the vicinity of my heart, sits a
little fellow at a control console who pushes buttons and pulls levers to both
cope with what he sees coming at him and as a way of creating conditions and
circumstances he wants to see. He’s about 8 years old so a lot of
what he does is just plain childish. But I’ve been helping him grow
up for many years now and I still have high hopes for him. His name is Freddie.
I, on the other hand, reside in my head, presumably in the brain somewhere and
my job is to make sense out of what Freddie sees and to keep his actions on as
adult and rational a level as I can manage. There used to be a third
character in here named Frederick
but Freddie and I managed to oust him a few years back. So, now, instead
of having multiple personalities I’m just your basic schizophrenic.
J
Enjoy…
Regards,
Fred Nickols
From Bill Powers
(2004.12.20.0832 MST)]
Fred, I repeat my question to Bruce: what part of human experience do you think
I should leave out of this theory?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1220.1148)]
Bill Powers (2004.12.20.0832 MST)
Good. I;m glad you don't object to any of my points.
current state is the lack of any theory of associative learning. You
reject Hebbian learning, yet offer no alternative. I see no way to get
from where you are to where you hope to be without such a model.
The enemy of truth is not error. The enemy of truth is certainty.
···
From my perspective, one of the major shortcomings of PCT in its