Rote, not-rote, it doesn’t really matter. A technique is a recipe for making the effect happen, whatever the means. If no techniques exist, if it’s shown that this interpretation doesn’t give a technique, I’m not interested, end of the story.
That’s not why I referenced the quote, it was to address the, “so if it came out 30 years ago, why hasn’t anything happened yet?” question. i.e., many things have.
The exact quote is “If the fruits of whatever this thing is (which remains meaningless to me until I study it) prove valuable, I’ll hear about them in good time”, by which I meant applications to procrastination in particular.
A technique is a recipe for making the effect happen, whatever the means. If no techniques exist, if it’s shown that this interpretation doesn’t give a technique, I’m not interested, end of the story.
To most people, a “technique” or “recipe” would involve a fixed number of steps that are not case-specific or person-specific. At the point where the steps become variable (iterative or recursive), one would have an “algorithm” or “method” rather than a “recipe”.
PCT effectively predicts that it is possible for such algorithms or methods to exist, but not techniques or recipes with a fixed number of steps for all cases.
That still strikes me as a significant prediction, since it allows one to narrow the field of techniques under consideration—if the recipe doesn’t include a “repeat” or “loop until” component, it will not work for everything or everyone.
The statement of results needs to be clear. There are no results, there might be results given more research. It’s not knowably applicable as yet. You may try it at home, but you may whistle to the wind as well.
My usage of “technique” was appropriate, e.g. surgery is also very much patient-dependent; you cut out a cancer from wherever it is in a particular patient, not only in rigid pre-specified places.
Since I made my meaning clear in the context, and you understood it, debating it was useless.
Rote, not-rote, it doesn’t really matter. A technique is a recipe for making the effect happen, whatever the means. If no techniques exist, if it’s shown that this interpretation doesn’t give a technique, I’m not interested, end of the story.
The exact quote is “If the fruits of whatever this thing is (which remains meaningless to me until I study it) prove valuable, I’ll hear about them in good time”, by which I meant applications to procrastination in particular.
To most people, a “technique” or “recipe” would involve a fixed number of steps that are not case-specific or person-specific. At the point where the steps become variable (iterative or recursive), one would have an “algorithm” or “method” rather than a “recipe”.
PCT effectively predicts that it is possible for such algorithms or methods to exist, but not techniques or recipes with a fixed number of steps for all cases.
That still strikes me as a significant prediction, since it allows one to narrow the field of techniques under consideration—if the recipe doesn’t include a “repeat” or “loop until” component, it will not work for everything or everyone.
The statement of results needs to be clear. There are no results, there might be results given more research. It’s not knowably applicable as yet. You may try it at home, but you may whistle to the wind as well.
My usage of “technique” was appropriate, e.g. surgery is also very much patient-dependent; you cut out a cancer from wherever it is in a particular patient, not only in rigid pre-specified places.
Since I made my meaning clear in the context, and you understood it, debating it was useless.