What's in a name?

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
21

[Philip 6/9/14 12:52am]

Teleology is the explanation of phenomena by the purposes they serve. I think mechanistic teleology is the perfect description of PCT. But if we’re playing baggage with Jerry Springer and you don’t like the name, then the only other name I can think of to describe PCT is anti-psychology. Unless you want to go with any of these:

  1. Top-down causal information theory

  2. Representation/Input disturbance theory

  3. Meta control theory

  4. Neologic

  5. The theory of purpose

  6. Schematic biology

  7. The mathematical theory of intelligence

  8. The theory of intelligent design

  9. The theory of everything

  10. Reality

If you’re trying to describe which field PCT belongs to, it’s basically computational biology - i.e. a theory of bioengineering. But I don’t think the world is ever going to look into PCT unless something splendid occurs. Changing the name is not going to do much, unless were going for neurolinguistic programming kudos. We know PCT has already slaughtered psychology -mercilessly- without psychology even knowing. Psychology is basically a ghost in denial. All I can say is that quantum physicists MUST know about PCT. These people would literally KILL for a working explanation of top-down causation in organized systems.

Check out this link:

humbleapproach.templeton.org/top_down_causation/

One of the participants, Eric Scerri, was my chem teacher at ucla. I’m sure he knows nothing about PCT and he would probably be surprised to hear about it. By the way, none of my bioengineering professors at ucla have ever heard of PCT. But they’re smart guys (and they don’t really like psychogy very much).

The only thing we can do in the mean time while we stew our plans is to to build a robotic operating system around PCT and have some fun doing it.

Phil

···

On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.08.2210)]

I think one big obstacle to acceptance of PCT in scientific psychology comes from the fact that PCT is not really an alternative to existing theories in psychology. Existing theories are attempts to explain behavior but the behavior they are trying to explain is not the behavior that PCT is trying to explain. Scientific psychologists don’t spend a lot of time defining the behavior they are trying to explain but whatever it is, it is not the behavior that PCT is trying to explain. PCT is trying to explain control; scientific psychologists are not trying to explain control; they are trying to explain something else.

So I was thinking that, in order to avoid confusion, we should come up with something other than “psychology” to describe the field of study to which PCT is applied. I was thinking that it should be something like control-ology but using the Greek or Latin word for “control”. The Latin word for control is imperium, which is not a good word to use for the scientific study of control; who wants to say that they study imperiology. The Greek word is much better. telos. But then we get teleology, which I like a lot but has too much baggage. Cybernetics is also a nice word to describe the study of control but, again, that word has some bad baggage as well.

So I would like to see if someone can come up with a name for the field of study that is the purview of PCT: the study of control, particularly that done by living systems. Indeed, why don’t we make this a contest; the winner gets not only eternal fame for naming a new field of study but, even better, a complimentary signed copy of my latest book when it comes out!

Good luck! The decision of the judge is final;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

22

Here’s a working link.

http://humbleapproach.templeton.org/Top_Down_Causation/

···

On Monday, June 9, 2014, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Philip 6/9/14 12:52am]

Teleology is the explanation of phenomena by the purposes they serve. I think mechanistic teleology is the perfect description of PCT. But if we’re playing baggage with Jerry Springer and you don’t like the name, then the only other name I can think of to describe PCT is anti-psychology. Unless you want to go with any of these:

  1. Top-down causal information theory
  1. Representation/Input disturbance theory
  1. Meta control theory
  1. Neologic
  1. The theory of purpose
  1. Schematic biology
  1. The mathematical theory of intelligence
  2. The theory of intelligent design
  1. The theory of everything
  1. Reality

If you’re trying to describe which field PCT belongs to, it’s basically computational biology - i.e. a theory of bioengineering. But I don’t think the world is ever going to look into PCT unless something splendid occurs. Changing the name is not going to do much, unless were going for neurolinguistic programming kudos. We know PCT has already slaughtered psychology -mercilessly- without psychology even knowing. Psychology is basically a ghost in denial. All I can say is that quantum physicists MUST know about PCT. These people would literally KILL for a working explanation of top-down causation in organized systems.

Check out this link:

humbleapproach.templeton.org/top_down_causation/

One of the participants, Eric Scerri, was my chem teacher at ucla. I’m sure he knows nothing about PCT and he would probably be surprised to hear about it. By the way, none of my bioengineering professors at ucla have ever heard of PCT. But they’re smart guys (and they don’t really like psychogy very much).

The only thing we can do in the mean time while we stew our plans is to to build a robotic operating system around PCT and have some fun doing it.

Phil

On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.08.2210)]

I think one big obstacle to acceptance of PCT in scientific psychology comes from the fact that PCT is not really an alternative to existing theories in psychology. Existing theories are attempts to explain behavior but the behavior they are trying to explain is not the behavior that PCT is trying to explain. Scientific psychologists don’t spend a lot of time defining the behavior they are trying to explain but whatever it is, it is not the behavior that PCT is trying to explain. PCT is trying to explain control; scientific psychologists are not trying to explain control; they are trying to explain something else.

So I was thinking that, in order to avoid confusion, we should come up with something other than “psychology” to describe the field of study to which PCT is applied. I was thinking that it should be something like control-ology but using the Greek or Latin word for “control”. The Latin word for control is imperium, which is not a good word to use for the scientific study of control; who wants to say that they study imperiology. The Greek word is much better. telos. But then we get teleology, which I like a lot but has too much baggage. Cybernetics is also a nice word to describe the study of control but, again, that word has some bad baggage as well.

So I would like to see if someone can come up with a name for the field of study that is the purview of PCT: the study of control, particularly that done by living systems. Indeed, why don’t we make this a contest; the winner gets not only eternal fame for naming a new field of study but, even better, a complimentary signed copy of my latest book when it comes out!

Good luck! The decision of the judge is final;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

23

[David Goldstein (2014.06.09.0917)]

Check out the term biocybernetics.

Here’s a working link.

http://humbleapproach.templeton.org/Top_Down_Causation/

···

On Monday, June 9, 2014 4:01 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

On Monday, June 9, 2014, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Philip 6/9/14 12:52am]

Teleology is the explanation of phenomena by the purposes they serve. I think mechanistic teleology is the perfect description of PCT. But if we’re playing baggage with Jerry Springer and you don’t like the name, then the only other name I can think of to describe PCT is anti-psychology. Unless you want to go with any of these:

  1. Top-down causal information theory
  1. Representation/Input disturbance theory
  1. Meta control theory
  1. Neologic
  1. The theory of purpose
  1. Schematic biology
  1. The mathematical theory of intelligence
  2. The theory of intelligent design
  1. The theory of everything
  1. Reality

If you’re trying to describe which field PCT belongs to, it’s basically computational biology - i.e. a theory of bioengineering. But I don’t think the world is ever going to look into PCT unless something splendid occurs. Changing the name is not going to do much, unless were going for neurolinguistic programming kudos. We know PCT has already slaughtered psychology -mercilessly- without psychology even knowing. Psychology is basically a ghost in denial. All I can say is that quantum physicists MUST know about PCT. These people would literally KILL for a working explanation of top-down causation in organized systems.

Check out this link:

humbleapproach.templeton.org/top_down_causation/

One of the participants, Eric Scerri, was my chem teacher at ucla. I’m sure he knows nothing about PCT and he would probably be surprised to hear about it. By the way, none of my bioengineering professors at ucla have ever heard of PCT. But they’re smart guys (and they don’t really like psychogy very much).

The only thing we can do in the mean time while we stew our plans is to to build a robotic operating system around PCT and have some fun doing it.

Phil

On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.08.2210)]

I think one big obstacle to acceptance of PCT in scientific psychology comes from the fact that PCT is not really an alternative to existing theories in psychology. Existing theories are attempts to explain behavior but the behavior they are trying to explain is not the behavior that PCT is trying to explain. Scientific psychologists don’t spend a lot of time defining the behavior they are trying to explain but whatever it is, it is not the behavior that PCT is trying to explain. PCT is trying to explain control; scientific psychologists are not trying to explain control; they are trying to explain something else.

So I was thinking that, in order to avoid confusion, we should come up with something other than “psychology” to describe the field of study to which PCT is applied. I was thinking that it should be something like control-ology but using the Greek or Latin word for “control”. The Latin word for control is imperium, which is not a good word to use for the scientific study of control; who wants to say that they study imperiology. The Greek word is much better. telos. But then we get teleology, which I like a lot but has too much baggage. Cybernetics is also a nice word to describe the study of control but, again, that word has some bad baggage as well.

So I would like to see if someone can come up with a name for the field of study that is the purview of PCT: the study of control, particularly that done by living systems. Indeed, why don’t we make this a contest; the winner gets not only eternal fame for naming a new field of study but, even better, a complimentary signed copy of my latest book when it comes out!

Good luck! The decision of the judge is final;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

24

I checked it out and came across “neurocybernetics.” That seems a good fit.

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

···

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 9, 2014, at 9:18 AM, D GOLDSTEIN davidmg@verizon.net wrote:

[David Goldstein (2014.06.09.0917)]

Check out the term biocybernetics.

On Monday, June 9, 2014 4:01 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

Here’s a working link.

http://humbleapproach.templeton.org/Top_Down_Causation/

On Monday, June 9, 2014, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Philip 6/9/14 12:52am]

Teleology is the explanation of phenomena by the purposes they serve. I think mechanistic teleology is the perfect description of PCT. But if we’re playing baggage with Jerry Springer and you don’t like the name, then the only other name I can think of to describe PCT is anti-psychology. Unless you want to go with any of these:

  1. Top-down causal information theory
  1. Representation/Input disturbance theory
  1. Meta control theory
  1. Neologic
  1. The theory of purpose
  1. Schematic biology
  1. The mathematical theory of intelligence
  2. The theory of intelligent design
  1. The theory of everything
  1. Reality

If you’re trying to describe which field PCT belongs to, it’s basically computational biology - i.e. a theory of bioengineering. But I don’t think the world is ever going to look into PCT unless something splendid occurs. Changing the name is not going to do much, unless were going for neurolinguistic programming kudos. We know PCT has already slaughtered psychology -mercilessly- without psychology even knowing. Psychology is basically a ghost in denial. All I can say is that quantum physicists MUST know about PCT. These people would literally KILL for a working explanation of top-down causation in organized systems.

Check out this link:

humbleapproach.templeton.org/top_down_causation/

One of the participants, Eric Scerri, was my chem teacher at ucla. I’m sure he knows nothing about PCT and he would probably be surprised to hear about it. By the way, none of my bioengineering professors at ucla have ever heard of PCT. But they’re smart guys (and they don’t really like psychogy very much).

The only thing we can do in the mean time while we stew our plans is to to build a robotic operating system around PCT and have some fun doing it.

Phil

On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.08.2210)]

I think one big obstacle to acceptance of PCT in scientific psychology comes from the fact that PCT is not really an alternative to existing theories in psychology. Existing theories are attempts to explain behavior but the behavior they are trying to explain is not the behavior that PCT is trying to explain. Scientific psychologists don’t spend a lot of time defining the behavior they are trying to explain but whatever it is, it is not the behavior that PCT is trying to explain. PCT is trying to explain control; scientific psychologists are not trying to explain control; they are trying to explain something else.

So I was thinking that, in order to avoid confusion, we should come up with something other than “psychology” to describe the field of study to which PCT is applied. I was thinking that it should be something like control-ology but using the Greek or Latin word for “control”. The Latin word for control is imperium, which is not a good word to use for the scientific study of control; who wants to say that they study imperiology. The Greek word is much better. telos. But then we get teleology, which I like a lot but has too much baggage. Cybernetics is also a nice word to describe the study of control but, again, that word has some bad baggage as well.

So I would like to see if someone can come up with a name for the field of study that is the purview of PCT: the study of control, particularly that done by living systems. Indeed, why don’t we make this a contest; the winner gets not only eternal fame for naming a new field of study but, even better, a complimentary signed copy of my latest book when it comes out!

Good luck! The decision of the judge is final;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

25

Instead of arguing that PCT should replace psychology, why don’t we just point out that PCT explains psychology?

Ted

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 7:35 AM
To: D GOLDSTEIN
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I checked it out and came across “neurocybernetics.” That seems a good fit.

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

Be sure you measure what you want.

Be sure you want what you measure.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 9, 2014, at 9:18 AM, D GOLDSTEIN davidmg@verizon.net wrote:

[David Goldstein (2014.06.09.0917)]

Check out the term biocybernetics.

On Monday, June 9, 2014 4:01 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

Here’s a working link.

http://humbleapproach.templeton.org/Top_Down_Causation/

On Monday, June 9, 2014, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Philip 6/9/14 12:52am]

Teleology is the explanation of phenomena by the purposes they serve. I think mechanistic teleology is the perfect description of PCT. But if we’re playing baggage with Jerry Springer and you don’t like the name, then the only other name I can think of to describe PCT is anti-psychology. Unless you want to go with any of these:

  1. Top-down causal information theory
  1. Representation/Input disturbance theory
  1. Meta control theory
  1. Neologic
  1. The theory of purpose
  1. Schematic biology
  1. The mathematical theory of intelligence
  1. The theory of intelligent design
  1. The theory of everything
  1. Reality

If you’re trying to describe which field PCT belongs to, it’s basically computational biology - i.e. a theory of bioengineering. But I don’t think the world is ever going to look into PCT unless something splendid occurs. Changing the name is not going to do much, unless were going for neurolinguistic programming kudos. We know PCT has already slaughtered psychology -mercilessly- without psychology even knowing. Psychology is basically a ghost in denial. All I can say is that quantum physicists MUST know about PCT. These people would literally KILL for a working explanation of top-down causation in organized systems.

Check out this link:

humbleapproach.templeton.org/top_down_causation/

One of the participants, Eric Scerri, was my chem teacher at ucla. I’m sure he knows nothing about PCT and he would probably be surprised to hear about it. By the way, none of my bioengineering professors at ucla have ever heard of PCT. But they’re smart guys (and they don’t really like psychogy very much).

The only thing we can do in the mean time while we stew our plans is to to build a robotic operating system around PCT and have some fun doing it.

Phil

On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.08.2210)]

I think one big obstacle to acceptance of PCT in scientific psychology comes from the fact that PCT is not really an alternative to existing theories in psychology. Existing theories are attempts to explain behavior but the behavior they are trying to explain is not the behavior that PCT is trying to explain. Scientific psychologists don’t spend a lot of time defining the behavior they are trying to explain but whatever it is, it is not the behavior that PCT is trying to explain. PCT is trying to explain control; scientific psychologists are not trying to explain control; they are trying to explain something else.

So I was thinking that, in order to avoid confusion, we should come up with something other than “psychology” to describe the field of study to which PCT is applied. I was thinking that it should be something like control-ology but using the Greek or Latin word for “control”. The Latin word for control is imperium, which is not a good word to use for the scientific study of control; who wants to say that they study imperiology. The Greek word is much better. telos. But then we get teleology, which I like a lot but has too much baggage. Cybernetics is also a nice word to describe the study of control but, again, that word has some bad baggage as well.

So I would like to see if someone can come up with a name for the field of study that is the purview of PCT: the study of control, particularly that done by living systems. Indeed, why don’t we make this a contest; the winner gets not only eternal fame for naming a new field of study but, even better, a complimentary signed copy of my latest book when it comes out!

Good luck! The decision of the judge is final;-)

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

26

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.09.1715)]

···

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

TC: Instead of arguing that PCT should replace psychology, why don’t we just point out that PCT explains psychology?

RM: Well, we’ve been doing that for a long time but I think we’ve been having trouble making that point because, as I said, PCT explains something that psychologists don’t even know exists: control. So while PCT does “explain” what psychologists have been studying – basically observable side effects of control – this explanation hasn’t sat too well with psychologists who don’t like being told that they’ve missed what is most important about behavior. So I thought it might be helpful to come up with a name to describe what PCT is designed to explain: the phenomenon of control.

In most fields the name of the field points to the subject matter – the phenomena-- that are studied in that field: the subject matter of “physics” is physical phenomena; the subject matter of “chemistry” is chemical phenomena; the subject matter of “geology” is earth phenomena. I’m looking for a name for the field that studies control phenomena. Teleology is really the best name for the field . But as I said it has kind of derogatory baggage. So I’m looking for a replacement for Teleology.

Many of the names that have been suggested so far aren’t quite right, from my perspective. I think they are more like descriptions of the theory than the phenomenon the theory is designed to explain. What I think I have so far are:

Neurocybernetics

Biocybernetics

Top-down causal information theory

Representation/Input disturbance theory
Meta control theory

Neologic
The theory of purpose
Schematic biology

The mathematical theory of intelligence
The theory of intelligent design
The theory of everything

Reality

In this list, biocybernetics is my top choice so far; cybernetics is a good word for the study of control (Wiener added “and communication” which I think was unnecessary) and bio says that it’s about control in living systems. But I was hoping for a new word – to replace teleology and cybernetics, which have unfortunate baggage – based on knowledge of Latin or Greek roots having to do with control or purpose. But maybe cybernetics is OK and biocybernetics is what I’m looking for. I could live with telling people that I’m a bio-cyberneticist – one who studies the controlling – purposeful behavior – of living systems.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

27

Most people don’t even know what cybernetics literally means. Why don’t you replace the word cybernetics with its English translation and go with:

Biological control theory

That way you stress the fact that PCT is the simply an application of control theory to biology without bringing in all the baggage associated with cybernetics

···

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

TC: Instead of arguing that PCT should replace psychology, why don’t we just point out that PCT explains psychology?

RM: Well, we’ve been doing that for a long time but I think we’ve been having trouble making that point because, as I said, PCT explains something that psychologists don’t even know exists: control. So while PCT does “explain” what psychologists have been studying – basically observable side effects of control – this explanation hasn’t sat too well with psychologists who don’t like being told that they’ve missed what is most important about behavior. So I thought it might be helpful to come up with a name to describe what PCT is designed to explain: the phenomenon of control.

In most fields the name of the field points to the subject matter – the phenomena-- that are studied in that field: the subject matter of “physics” is physical phenomena; the subject matter of “chemistry” is chemical phenomena; the subject matter of “geology” is earth phenomena. I’m looking for a name for the field that studies control phenomena. Teleology is really the best name for the field . But as I said it has kind of derogatory baggage. So I’m looking for a replacement for Teleology.

Many of the names that have been suggested so far aren’t quite right, from my perspective. I think they are more like descriptions of the theory than the phenomenon the theory is designed to explain. What I think I have so far are:

Neurocybernetics

Biocybernetics

Top-down causal information theory

Representation/Input disturbance theory
Meta control theory

Neologic
The theory of purpose
Schematic biology

The mathematical theory of intelligence
The theory of intelligent design
The theory of everything

Reality

In this list, biocybernetics is my top choice so far; cybernetics is a good word for the study of control (Wiener added “and communication” which I think was unnecessary) and bio says that it’s about control in living systems. But I was hoping for a new word – to replace teleology and cybernetics, which have unfortunate baggage – based on knowledge of Latin or Greek roots having to do with control or purpose. But maybe cybernetics is OK and biocybernetics is what I’m looking for. I could live with telling people that I’m a bio-cyberneticist – one who studies the controlling – purposeful behavior – of living systems.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

28

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.14.1730)]

···

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:25 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Most people don’t even know what cybernetics literally means. Why don’t you replace the word cybernetics with its English translation and go with:

Biological control theory

That way you stress the fact that PCT is the simply an application of control theory to biology without bringing in all the baggage associated with cybernetics

RM: Good point. But I want to get rid of the reference to theory. I want to emphasize the phenomenon that is under study. And I also want it to be a one word name so that the field is easily recognizable. But, again. most important is to emphasize the what we are studying is control – the observable phenomenon of control – as it is seen in living organisms.

Best

Rick

On Monday, June 9, 2014, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.09.1715)]

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

TC: Instead of arguing that PCT should replace psychology, why don’t we just point out that PCT explains psychology?

RM: Well, we’ve been doing that for a long time but I think we’ve been having trouble making that point because, as I said, PCT explains something that psychologists don’t even know exists: control. So while PCT does “explain” what psychologists have been studying – basically observable side effects of control – this explanation hasn’t sat too well with psychologists who don’t like being told that they’ve missed what is most important about behavior. So I thought it might be helpful to come up with a name to describe what PCT is designed to explain: the phenomenon of control.

In most fields the name of the field points to the subject matter – the phenomena-- that are studied in that field: the subject matter of “physics” is physical phenomena; the subject matter of “chemistry” is chemical phenomena; the subject matter of “geology” is earth phenomena. I’m looking for a name for the field that studies control phenomena. Teleology is really the best name for the field . But as I said it has kind of derogatory baggage. So I’m looking for a replacement for Teleology.

Many of the names that have been suggested so far aren’t quite right, from my perspective. I think they are more like descriptions of the theory than the phenomenon the theory is designed to explain. What I think I have so far are:

Neurocybernetics

Biocybernetics

Top-down causal information theory

Representation/Input disturbance theory
Meta control theory

Neologic
The theory of purpose
Schematic biology

The mathematical theory of intelligence
The theory of intelligent design
The theory of everything

Reality

In this list, biocybernetics is my top choice so far; cybernetics is a good word for the study of control (Wiener added “and communication” which I think was unnecessary) and bio says that it’s about control in living systems. But I was hoping for a new word – to replace teleology and cybernetics, which have unfortunate baggage – based on knowledge of Latin or Greek roots having to do with control or purpose. But maybe cybernetics is OK and biocybernetics is what I’m looking for. I could live with telling people that I’m a bio-cyberneticist – one who studies the controlling – purposeful behavior – of living systems.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

29

Do you think that bio cybernetics captures this emphasis properly? You’re trying to describe the study of observation (of control). What do you call the study of observation?

···

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:25 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Most people don’t even know what cybernetics literally means. Why don’t you replace the word cybernetics with its English translation and go with:

Biological control theory

That way you stress the fact that PCT is the simply an application of control theory to biology without bringing in all the baggage associated with cybernetics

RM: Good point. But I want to get rid of the reference to theory. I want to emphasize the phenomenon that is under study. And I also want it to be a one word name so that the field is easily recognizable. But, again. most important is to emphasize the what we are studying is control – the observable phenomenon of control – as it is seen in living organisms.

Best

Rick

On Monday, June 9, 2014, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.09.1715)]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

TC: Instead of arguing that PCT should replace psychology, why don’t we just point out that PCT explains psychology?

RM: Well, we’ve been doing that for a long time but I think we’ve been having trouble making that point because, as I said, PCT explains something that psychologists don’t even know exists: control. So while PCT does “explain” what psychologists have been studying – basically observable side effects of control – this explanation hasn’t sat too well with psychologists who don’t like being told that they’ve missed what is most important about behavior. So I thought it might be helpful to come up with a name to describe what PCT is designed to explain: the phenomenon of control.

In most fields the name of the field points to the subject matter – the phenomena-- that are studied in that field: the subject matter of “physics” is physical phenomena; the subject matter of “chemistry” is chemical phenomena; the subject matter of “geology” is earth phenomena. I’m looking for a name for the field that studies control phenomena. Teleology is really the best name for the field . But as I said it has kind of derogatory baggage. So I’m looking for a replacement for Teleology.

Many of the names that have been suggested so far aren’t quite right, from my perspective. I think they are more like descriptions of the theory than the phenomenon the theory is designed to explain. What I think I have so far are:

Neurocybernetics

Biocybernetics

Top-down causal information theory

Representation/Input disturbance theory
Meta control theory

Neologic
The theory of purpose
Schematic biology

The mathematical theory of intelligence
The theory of intelligent design
The theory of everything

Reality

In this list, biocybernetics is my top choice so far; cybernetics is a good word for the study of control (Wiener added “and communication” which I think was unnecessary) and bio says that it’s about control in living systems. But I was hoping for a new word – to replace teleology and cybernetics, which have unfortunate baggage – based on knowledge of Latin or Greek roots having to do with control or purpose. But maybe cybernetics is OK and biocybernetics is what I’m looking for. I could live with telling people that I’m a bio-cyberneticist – one who studies the controlling – purposeful behavior – of living systems.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

30

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/

···

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:25 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Most people don’t even know what cybernetics literally means. Why don’t you replace the word cybernetics with its English translation and go with:

Biological control theory

That way you stress the fact that PCT is the simply an application of control theory to biology without bringing in all the baggage associated with cybernetics

RM: Good point. But I want to get rid of the reference to theory. I want to emphasize the phenomenon that is under study. And I also want it to be a one word name so that the field is easily recognizable. But, again. most important is to emphasize the what we are studying is control – the observable phenomenon of control – as it is seen in living organisms.

Best

Rick

On Monday, June 9, 2014, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.09.1715)]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

TC: Instead of arguing that PCT should replace psychology, why don’t we just point out that PCT explains psychology?

RM: Well, we’ve been doing that for a long time but I think we’ve been having trouble making that point because, as I said, PCT explains something that psychologists don’t even know exists: control. So while PCT does “explain” what psychologists have been studying – basically observable side effects of control – this explanation hasn’t sat too well with psychologists who don’t like being told that they’ve missed what is most important about behavior. So I thought it might be helpful to come up with a name to describe what PCT is designed to explain: the phenomenon of control.

In most fields the name of the field points to the subject matter – the phenomena-- that are studied in that field: the subject matter of “physics” is physical phenomena; the subject matter of “chemistry” is chemical phenomena; the subject matter of “geology” is earth phenomena. I’m looking for a name for the field that studies control phenomena. Teleology is really the best name for the field . But as I said it has kind of derogatory baggage. So I’m looking for a replacement for Teleology.

Many of the names that have been suggested so far aren’t quite right, from my perspective. I think they are more like descriptions of the theory than the phenomenon the theory is designed to explain. What I think I have so far are:

Neurocybernetics

Biocybernetics

Top-down causal information theory

Representation/Input disturbance theory
Meta control theory

Neologic
The theory of purpose
Schematic biology

The mathematical theory of intelligence
The theory of intelligent design
The theory of everything

Reality

In this list, biocybernetics is my top choice so far; cybernetics is a good word for the study of control (Wiener added “and communication” which I think was unnecessary) and bio says that it’s about control i

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

31

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.10.0815)]

···

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:49 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Do you think that bio cybernetics captures this emphasis properly? You’re trying to describe the study of observation (of control). What do you call the study of observation?

RM: I’m trying to find a word that describes the study of an observable phenomenon – control – not the study of observation. I think biocybernetics does capture that pretty well. But how about “cybertology” or “contrology” or “teleonomics”? I like that last one! Analogous to “economics”.

Best

Rick

On Monday, June 9, 2014, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.14.1730)]

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:25 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Most people don’t even know what cybernetics literally means. Why don’t you replace the word cybernetics with its English translation and go with:

Biological control theory

That way you stress the fact that PCT is the simply an application of control theory to biology without bringing in all the baggage associated with cybernetics

RM: Good point. But I want to get rid of the reference to theory. I want to emphasize the phenomenon that is under study. And I also want it to be a one word name so that the field is easily recognizable. But, again. most important is to emphasize the what we are studying is control – the observable phenomenon of control – as it is seen in living organisms.

Best

Rick

On Monday, June 9, 2014, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.09.1715)]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

TC: Instead of arguing that PCT should replace psychology, why don’t we just point out that PCT explains psychology?

RM: Well, we’ve been doing that for a long time but I think we’ve been having trouble making that point because, as I said, PCT explains something that psychologists don’t even know exists: control. So while PCT does “explain” what psychologists have been studying – basically observable side effects of control – this explanation hasn’t sat too well with psychologists who don’t like being told that they’ve missed what is most important about behavior. So I thought it might be helpful to come up with a name to describe what PCT is designed to explain: the phenomenon of control.

In most fields the name of the field points to the subject matter – the phenomena-- that are studied in that field: the subject matter of “physics” is physical phenomena; the subject matter of “chemistry” is chemical phenomena; the subject matter of “geology” is earth phenomena. I’m looking for a name for the field that studies control phenomena. Teleology is really the best name for the field . But as I said it has kind of derogatory baggage. So I’m looking for a replacement for Teleology.

Many of the names that have been suggested so far aren’t quite right, from my perspective. I think they are more like descriptions of the theory than the phenomenon the theory is designed to explain. What I think I have so far are:

Neurocybernetics

Biocybernetics

Top-down causal information theory

Representation/Input disturbance theory
Meta control theory

Neologic
The theory of purpose
Schematic biology

The mathematical theory of intelligence
The theory of intelligent design
The theory of everything

Reality

In this list, biocybernetics is my top choice so far; cybernetics is a good word for the study of control (Wiener added “and communication” which I think was unnecessary) and bio says that it’s about control in living systems. But I was hoping for a new word – to replace teleology and cybernetics, which have unfortunate baggage – based on knowledge of Latin or Greek roots having to do with control or purpose. But maybe cybernetics is OK and biocybernetics is what I’m looking for. I could live with telling people that I’m a bio-cyberneticist – one who studies the controlling – purposeful behavior – of living systems.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

32

Biocybernetics is already an established field.  Teleonomy is what Aristotle talked about. If you just want to get rid of the word ‘theory’ in PCT, call the field perceptual control phenomenology PCP. I don’t think you should ever take perceptual control out of the name.  Phenomenology is a very good word.Â

Again,

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/

The discipline of phenomenology may be defined initially as the study of structures of experience, or consciousness. Literally, phenomenology is the study of “phenomenaâ€?: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience.Â

I vote PCPÂ

···

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:49 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Do you think that bio cybernetics captures this emphasis properly? You’re trying to describe the study of observation (of control). Â What do you call the study of observation?

RM: I’m trying to find a word that describes the study of an observable phenomenon – Â control – not the study of observation. I think biocybernetics does capture that pretty well. But how about “cybertology” or “contrology” or “teleonomics”? I like that last one! Analogous to “economics”.

BestÂ

Rick

Â

On Monday, June 9, 2014, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.14.1730)]

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:25 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Most people don’t even know what cybernetics literally means. Why don’t you replace the word cybernetics with its English translation and go with:

Biological control theoryÂ

That way you stress the fact that PCT is the simply an application of control theory to biology without bringing in all the baggage associated with cybernetics

RM: Good point. But I want to get rid of the reference to theory. I want to emphasize the phenomenon that is under study. And I also want it to be a one word name so that the field is easily recognizable. But, again. most important is to emphasize the what we are studying is control – the observable phenomenon of control – as it is seen in living organisms.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

On Monday, June 9, 2014, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.09.1715)]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Ted Cloak tcloak@unm.edu wrote:

TC: Instead of arguing that PCT should replace psychology, why don’t we just point out that PCT explains psychology?

RM: Well, we’ve been doing that for a long time but I think we’ve been having trouble making that point because, as I said, PCT explains something that psychologists don’t even know exists: control. So while PCT does “explain” what psychologists have been studying – basically observable side effects of control – this explanation hasn’t sat too well with psychologists who don’t like being told that they’ve missed what is most important about behavior. So I thought it might be helpful to come up with a name to describe what PCT is designed to explain: the phenomenon of control.

In most fields the name of the field points to the subject matter – the phenomena-- that are studied in that field: the subject matter of “physics” is physical phenomena; the subject matter of “chemistry” is chemical phenomena; the subject matter of “geology” is earth phenomena. I’m looking for a name for the field that studies control phenomena. Teleology is really the best name for the field . But as I said it has kind of derogatory baggage. So I’m looking for a replacement for Teleology.Â

Many of the names that have been suggested so far aren’t quite right, from my perspective. I think they are more like descriptions of the theory than the phenomenon the theory is designed to explain. What I think I have so far are:Â

Neurocybernetics

Biocybernetics

Top-down causal information theoryÂ

Representation/Input disturbance theory Â
Meta control theoryÂ

NeologicÂ
The theory of purposeÂ
Schematic biology Â

The mathematical theory of intelligenceÂ
The theory of intelligent designÂ
The theory of everythingÂ

RealityÂ

In this list, biocybernetics is my top choice so far; cybernetics is a good word for the study of control (Wiener added “and communication” which I think was unnecessary) and bio says that it’s about control in living systems. But I was hoping for a new word – to replace teleology and cybernetics, which have unfortunate baggage – based on knowledge of Latin or Greek roots having to do with control or purpose. But maybe cybernetics is OK and biocybernetics is what I’m looking for. I could live with telling people that I’m a bio-cyberneticist – one who studies the controlling – purposeful behavior – of living systems.Â

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

33

[Martin Taylor 2014.06.10.12.24]

In many areas of science "-ology" is the folk form, "-onomy" or

“onomics” the measure and test form, as in Astrology and Astronomy.
That’s why the Psychonomics society was formed, to differentiate it
from Psychology in the same way. If the name weren’t taken, it would
be a good one for PCT. I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it
could be understood to mean the study of purpose, rather than the
study of control in support of purpose. Also, one of the mis-aimed
hits at PCT is that it smacks of Teleology – things happen in order
to make the world be the way it should be. The hit is mis-aimed, not
because it is false, but because the truth of it is misunderstood.
As an aside, “Economics” ought to be called “Ecology”, but Ecology
refers to an actual science, whereas Economics apparently doesn’t,
at least at present, in that although it measures and calculates, it
doesn’t seem to refer to evidence.
How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of
Al-gebra?
The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It
didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?
Martin

···

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.10.0815)]

        On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:49 PM,

PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

          PY: Do

you think that bio cybernetics captures this emphasis
properly? You’re trying to describe the study of
observation (of control). What do you call the study of
observation?

          RM: I'm trying to find a word that describes the study

of an observable phenomenon – control – not the study
of observation. I think biocybernetics does capture that
pretty well. But how about “cybertology” or “contrology”
or “teleonomics”? I like that last one! Analogous to
“economics”.

Best

Rick

34

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don't think "Teleonomics" is taken, but it could be understood to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of purpose. I think of "purpose" as a lay term that refers what we understand to be the phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don't see control as something that "supports" purpose; control _is_ purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in Arabic. >

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It didn't get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as important as the destination, grasshopper;-)
Best
Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
<http://www.mindreadings.com>www.mindreadings.com

35

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I often need to place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha! Would that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

···

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don't think "Teleonomics" is taken, but it

could be understood to mean the study of purpose, rather than the
study of control in support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of purpose. I think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be the phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don’t see control as something that “supports” purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of

Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It

didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

36

What about teleometrics?

···

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: bara0361@gmail.com

Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I
often need to place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha! Would that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it could be understood to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of purpose. I think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be the phenomenon of control: the production
of consistent results by varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don’t see control as something that “supports” purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD

www.mindreadings.com

37

Hi everyone,

Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over geological timescales?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

Warren

···

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: bara0361@gmail.com

Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I
often need to place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha! Would that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken > rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it could be understood to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of purpose. I think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be the phenomenon of control: the production
of consistent results by varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don’t see control as something that “supports” purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD

www.mindreadings.com

–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I
University of Manchester

Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See 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 is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

38

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as the PCT way.

Hi everyone,
Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over geological timescales?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

Warren

···

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: bara0361@gmail.com

Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I
often need to place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha! Would that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it could be understood to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of purpose. I think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be the phenomenon of control: the production
of consistent results by varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don’t see control as something that “supports” purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD

www.mindreadings.com

–
Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website:
http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See 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 is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

-------- Original message --------

From: Warren Mansell

Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

39

I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to seem vain.

···

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as the PCT way.

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: Warren Mansell

Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

Hi everyone,
Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over geological timescales?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

Warren

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: bara0361@gmail.com

Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I
often need to place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha! Would that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it could be understood to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of purpose. I think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be the phenomenon of control: the production
of consistent results by varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don’t see control as something that “supports” purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD

www.mindreadings.com

–
Dr Warren Mansell

Reader in Psychology

Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist

School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I

University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester M13 9PL

Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website:
http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See 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 is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

40

I agree. Oh, wait. How about Cyber-Ethology

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology) ?

Nope. It’s got to include “perception” and “control” and there’s nothing wrong with “theory”. PCT it is.

HTH

Ted

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:21 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I think we should keep the name PCT. This discussion is beginning to seem vain.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

I thought that, regardless of company name, it assumes as fact that purpose exists, and as such, can be measured. I understand this as the PCT way.

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Warren Mansell
Date:06/11/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

Hi everyone,

Teleometrics is a company name and I think a bit specific around measurement.

Teleonomy already exists but actually does align us with a take on evolution that is a bit like what PCT tries to explain but over geological timescales?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy

Warren

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, davidwm40 davidwm40@hotmail.com wrote:

What about teleometrics?

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: bara0361@gmail.com
Date:06/11/2014 11:29 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What’s in a name?

I’m enjoying this exchange, at any rate! I like the challenge of crafting a new name, and see a lot of great suggestions. All good things take time, so it’s not as if this has to be decided right away. When I’m in the process of writing something, I often need to place it on the back burner for awhile, and the words that once eluded me suddenly bubble forth at the oddest moments, usually when my back is turned…

I was laughing at “The Theory of Everything,” and “Reality.” ha! Would that it should be that obvious…

best,

*barb

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.06.11.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2014.06.10.12.24)

MT: I don’t think “Teleonomics” is taken, but it could be understood to mean the study of purpose, rather than the study of control in support of purpose.

RM: I would be comfortable with teleonomics being understood as the study of purpose because I see the study of control as the study of purpose. I think of “purpose” as a lay term that refers what we understand to be the phenomenon of control: the production of consistent results by varying actions as necessary to counter unpredictable and undetectable disturbances to those results. So I don’t see control as something that “supports” purpose; control is purpose.

MT: How about looking for a word based in Arabic, on the model of Al-gebra?

RM: Good idea.But the Arabic words meaning control are written in Arabic.

MT: The last time we had this discussion was only 6 or 7 weeks ago. It didn’t get anywhere then. Is it likely to get any further now?

RM: Do we ever get anywhere in these discussions? The journey is as important as the destination, grasshopper;-)

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See 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 is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory