Why can't we just get along?

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · September 21, 2008, 2:57pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.09.21)]

Bill, I have been enjoying your foray into going up a level with Jim Wuwert to resolve his internal conflicts. It has been a marvelous application of PCT and HPCT. And, if we can’t find ways to apply your wonderful theory of behavior to improve humankind, then its value remains largely theoretical and will not be of much interest to the populace.

Unfortunately, us humans, even PCTers, by nature resist disturbances to their reference perceptions. It is so obvious in such topics as politics. Rick, and even my tennis buddy Dick R, continue to battle at the level of conflict posting nasty observations about the character and intentions of those who perceive and believe life variables differently, i.e., Republicans, hockey-mom candidates, pro-life (anit-abortionists), etc. I have learned/reorganized? to deplore politics and refuse to get too conflicted about it. But, that is only what works for me.

Your approach is laudable for those who would really like to quit playing politics at the conflict level and turn upward to the levels where government could help promote the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for the citizens of the USA who were endowed by their Creator with those rights.

I am coming to the view that in your model, reorganization is indeed not a cognitive function. You pick the definitions and sort of close the door as Martin reacted. Instead of disputing your theory, I am increasingly pulled toward the possibility that there are other cognitive processes in humans that create learning and the establishment of new reference perceptions at the highest level. Just because you don’t accept them does not mean they do not exist. Science is rampant with such experiences based on creative imagination of new possibilities.

Anyway, I will be in Colorado Springs from October 16-23. Will we be close enough to share an afternoon or meal together and discuss some recent scientific discoveries about the nature of human beings and the world we experience? This includes interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict such as we see in the rules by which we are governed.

Best wishes,

Kenny

In a message dated 9/20/2008 4:48:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

···

[From Bill Powers (2008.09.20.1445 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2008.09.20.14.29 –

As far as my model is concerned, reorganization arises from error,
nothing else, not even what the error is about. Reorganization is
not a cognitive function.

That is as good a way of cutting off further exploration of PCT as
you could choose. It is simply saying “I KNOW the truth, so stop
thinking about other possibilities.” or perhaps “MY model is the
correct one, and don’t try any other”. Unworthy of you.

I didn’t mean to cut you off. If you want to develop another model I
would strongly encourage you to do so. Let me know when you have it
running and we can think up some test cases to help us choose between
the candidates. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if something more than
my model is needed.

Best,

Bill P.

Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.

Bill_Powers1 · September 21, 2008, 4:09pm

Your approach is laudable for
those who would really like to quit playing politics at the conflict
level and turn upward to the levels where government could help promote
the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for the citizens of the USA
who were endowed by their Creator with those
rights.
<As far as my model is
concerned, reorganization arises from error, nothing else, not even what
the error is about. Reorganization is not a cognitive function.>

I am coming to the view that in your model, reorganization is indeed not
a cognitive function. You pick the definitions and sort of close
the door as Martin reacted. Instead of disputing your theory, I am
increasingly pulled toward the possibility that there are other cognitive
processes in humans that create learning and the establishment of new
reference perceptions at the highest level. Just because you don’t
accept them does not mean they do not exist. Science is rampant
with such experiences based on creative imagination of new
possibilities.
Anyway, I will be in Colorado
Springs from October 16-23. Will we be close enough to share an
afternoon or meal together and discuss some recent scientific discoveries
about the nature of human beings and the world we experience? This
includes interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict such as we see in the
rules by which we are governed.
[From Bill Powers (2008.09.21.0949 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2008.09.21)

···

–

Well, as you know, I think the Creator was the Big Bang, or perhaps
whatever or whoever caused that, but otherwise we see eye to eye.

I think that if you look carefully at what you call “creative
imagination,” you will find that predicting just what will be
creatively imagined is difficult, if not impossible. “A process that
produces results that can’t be predicted by any existing orderly
method” is a perfectly good definition of “random,” as I
see it.

But by all means, go ahead. What are the “other cognitive
processes” that create learning and establish new references at the
highest level? If they work I’ll add them to the model. I’m not
rejecting any alternatives to the E. coli mode of reorganization. I just
don’t know of any.

I’d really like to join you there – I can drive there in less than 90
minutes. It should be for lunch, because I don’t want to drive home in
the dark. Name the day and place.

Best,

Bill

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · September 21, 2008, 6:27pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.09.21.1313 EDT)]

<Well, as you know, I think the Creator was the Big Bang, or perhaps whatever or whoever caused that, but otherwise we see eye to eye.>

One of the reasons we seem to get along is that our difference in reference perceptions about “origins” does not seem to matter in exploring how behavior works today.

However, when it comes to governance, it does matter. For it was the founders of this country (arguably the “greatest” in the history of mankind) who wrote those words expressing their belief in a purposeful Creator of humans rather than in some mysterious “big bang” explosion. And, many of there ideas about proper societal laws came from the most popular book ever published. Many of our politicians have probably never read the book. Only a few have studied like most of those founding fathers. Is it any wonder there are different beliefs about the governance of man? I can’t help but wonder whether the founder’s reference would be different today. But, like the origins of man, it may not matter. We can only deal with what us living people perceive and do.

Creative imagination is a process that seems largely unique to humans. Every writer of a new song is familiar with what I mean. We really do understand “random” differently and it has caused disagreements about what you term “reorganization.” What the new song will be is unknown in advance. But, the result is not random by my definition. I use it as it is used in science, in statistical science, as equally likely outcomes. If I were to create a new song, it would not be equally likely to be a patriotic march or a love song.

<But by all means, go ahead. What are the “other cognitive processes” that create learning and establish new references at the highest level? If they work I’ll add them to the model. I’m not rejecting any alternatives to the E. coli mode of reorganization. I just don’t know of any.

I’d really like to join you there – I can drive there in less than 90 minutes. It should be for lunch, because I don’t want to drive home in the dark. Name the day and place.>

I will share with you what works for me in Colorado Springs. I will be making some presentations during that week but don’t know what days. As soon as I know, I will name the day and we can have lunch and an afternoon discussion. I will be staying at Candlewood Suites 6450 NORTH ACADEMY BOULEVARD
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80918 1-719-590-1111. I think that will be even a shorter trip for you.

My cell phone number is 724-989-9284. I am not sure if I have yours. Perhaps you could email it to me privately at LawstSheep@aol.com?

Until then,

Kenny

···

Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.

Fred_Nickols1 · September 21, 2008, 10:51pm

[From Fred Nickols (2008.09.21.1550 MST)]

Oh, drat! I was just in Colorado Springs for four days (and in Salida for four weeks). Oh well, maybe next time.

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems <KJKitzke@AOL.COM>

[From Kenny Kitzke (2008.09.21.1313 EDT)]

<Bill Powers (2008.09.21.0949 MDT)>

<Well, as you know, I think the Creator was the Big Bang, or perhaps
whatever or whoever caused that, but otherwise we see eye to eye.>

One of the reasons we seem to get along is that our difference in reference
perceptions about "origins" does not seem to matter in exploring how behavior
works today.

However, when it comes to governance, it does matter. For it was the
founders of this country (arguably the "greatest" in the history of mankind) who
wrote those words expressing their belief in a purposeful Creator of humans
rather than in some mysterious "big bang" explosion. And, many of there ideas
about proper societal laws came from the most popular book ever published.
Many of our politicians have probably never read the book. Only a few have
studied like most of those founding fathers. Is it any wonder there are
different beliefs about the governance of man? I can't help but wonder whether
the
founder's reference would be different today. But, like the origins of
man, it may not matter. We can only deal with what us living people perceive
and do.

<I think that if you look carefully at what you call "creative imagination,"
you will find that predicting just what will be creatively imagined is
difficult, if not impossible. "A process that produces results that can't be
predicted by any existing orderly method" is a perfectly good definition of
"random," as I see it.>

Creative imagination is a process that seems largely unique to humans.
Every writer of a new song is familiar with what I mean. We really do
understand
"random" differently and it has caused disagreements about what you term
"reorganization." What the new song will be is unknown in advance. But, the
result is not random by my definition. I use it as it is used in science, in
statistical science, as equally likely outcomes. If I were to create a new
song, it would not be equally likely to be a patriotic march or a love song.

<But by all means, go ahead. What are the "other cognitive processes" that
create learning and establish new references at the highest level? If they
work I'll add them to the model. I'm not rejecting any alternatives to the E.
coli mode of reorganization. I just don't know of any.

I'd really like to join you there -- I can drive there in less than 90
minutes. It should be for lunch, because I don't want to drive home in the dark.
Name the day and place.>

I will share with you what works for me in Colorado Springs. I will be
making some presentations during that week but don't know what days. As soon
as
I know, I will name the day and we can have lunch and an afternoon
discussion. I will be staying at Candlewood Suites 6450 NORTH ACADEMY
BOULEVARD
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80918 1-719-590-1111. I think that will be even a
shorter trip for you.

My cell phone number is 724-989-9284. I am not sure if I have yours.
Perhaps you could email it to me privately at _LawstSheep@aol.com_
(mailto:LawstSheep@aol.com) ?

Until then,

Kenny

**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (walletpop.com)

rsmarken · September 22, 2008, 7:34pm

[From Rick Marken (2008.09.21.1230)]

Kenny Kitzke (2008.09.21.1313 EDT)

One of the reasons we [Ken and Bill Powers] seem to get along is that
our difference in reference perceptions about "origins" does not seem to
matter in exploring how behavior works today.

Maybe one of the reasons we don't get along, Kenny, is that you seem
to think that you see PCT fitting comfortably into your religious
faith while I see your religious faith as fitting comfortably into
PCT.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com