🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Rick Marken (990428.0730)]

Bill Powers (990427.1644 MDT) --

> You have to suppose that the ant is not controlling other
> perceptions to which the presence or absence of obstacles
> is irrelevant, such as scents and light variations. You
> have to assume that its internal goal structure remains
> completely fixed, and that all goals represent static (rather
> than time-varying) states of affairs. Your example
> is indeed not a brilliant point; it rests on unspoken
> assumptions of which you seem unaware.

Bruce Gregory (990428.0928 EDT)

> Well stated. My only wish is that an equally enlightened
> position had emerged during the discussion of coercion.

What does the fact that organisms (like ants) control many
perceptions simultaneously have to do with the fact that
organisms sometimes coerce other organisms? Why is PCT an
"enlightened position" when one is explaining the behavior of
ants but not an enlightened position when explaining the
behavior of a person who controls the behavior of another
person using force or the credible threat thereof?

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken                 Phone or Fax:  310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates         e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken