[From Erling Jorgensen (2018.08.15 2345 EDT)]
Erling Jorgensen (2018.08.15 1830 EDT)
Rick Marken 2018-08-15_18:54:36
EJ: I am suggesting a different PCT explanation than the statistical-
artifact/illusion one that Rick is proposing.
RM: The fact that the power law is an illusion can be determined without any
knowledge of statistics.
EJ: I like how you insert the word “fact�? about what is indeed a proposal
still being contested.
RM: Once you know that, you know that the power law is an unintended side
effect of this controlling.
EJ: Yes, once you have presumed it as a fact, then you have constructed a
‘knowing’ that it must be an unintended side effect.
EJ: But there is another way to go about it, the way Bill demonstrated with
his Little Man V2 model. He showed that a very simplified control model could
generate what appear to be sophisticated calculations, as a by-product, or
side effect, of the working of the model.
RM: But once you know that the power law is a side effect of control you can
stop studying it as a way of learning about the mechanisms that produce
movement and start studying movement as a control phenomenon, which will
involve figuring out what perceptual variables are being controlled when
people produce movements.
EJ: If you read the rest of my post and my previous one, you will know I am
aiming at that very thing. I believe I am doing it with a little less hubris.
However, following Bill, any alternate model will still need to generate
behavior that is akin to power-law data, without specifically controlling for
that outcome.
All the best,
Erling