I Have sent an inquiry to Mr. Kurtzer. Here is his contact page:
http://www.nyit.edu/nycom/neuroscience/neuro_histo_faculty_staff
Mike Mermel
···
On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:00 AM, CSGNET automatic digest system wrote:
There are 4 messages totalling 6600 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. An appeal for support (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:45:10 -0600
From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
Subject: An appeal for support
from Bill Powers to all CSGers and friends.
Have a look at Nature for 20 Oct 2011, Volume 478, page 387. There
you will find an article titled "Primary motor cortex underlies
multi-joint integration for fast feedback control." The abstract
concludes, "... this provides neurophysiological support for
influential theories positing that voluntary movement is generated by
the intelligent manipulation of sensory feedback." You might
incorrectly think that among these influential theories proposing
that behavior is a process of controlling sensory feedback
(perceptions) might be found a reference to Perceptual Control Theory
and some of the modeling work that has come out of it.
You might be even more inclined to expect such a reference, still
incorrectly, when of the first two authors, said to have contributed
equally to this work, one is Isaac Kurtzer of Queens University,
Kingston, Ontario. The same Isaac Kurtzer was a student of Tom
Bourbon's (a cofounder of the Control Systems Group) at Stephen F.
Austin State University at Naucogdoches, Texas, and a member of the
CSG from shortly after it was formed, an association which continued
through the years at Brandeis University where he got his PhD, just
before he moved to Queen's University. He attended many CSG meetings
and was surely acquainted with all my writings and models except
perhaps those in the latest book, Living Control Systems III.
Of course it may be the case that Isaac has concluded that PCT is an
incorrect theory and that the models of multi-joint behavior that
have come out of it are flawed. If that is what he concluded,
however, that is what he should say, because PCT has been established
well enough to be at least worthy of consideration if not belief, and
should not simply be ignored. If, on the other hand, he attempted to
persuade his co-authors that PCT should be considered but was unable
to do so, his coauthors at least, by scientific morality, should have
declared their reasons for not considering it important. Or so it seems to me.
If anyone who reads this article sees the same parallels with PCT
that I see, and thinks that letters of protest are at all useful, I
hope the result will be a few letters to the editors of Nature, or
perhaps some posts to the email address given as the appropriate
point of contact with the authors:
steve.scott@queensu.ca
I have copied this post to that address.
Best to all,
Bill P.