Got Ideas?

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.29.1020)]

···

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

AGM: honestly, this whole csgnet thing looks more an entertainment for you than a serious attempt to continue to push pct forward.

RM: I’m sorry you feel that way. I do find discussions on CSGNet entertaining but I don’t think that makes them any less serious. And I am certainly trying to push PCT forward. But I can understand why you think I am not doing that.

RM: To you (and apparently everyone else involved in this discussion, with the notable exception of Henry Yin) pushing PCT forward would mean showing how PCT explains the relationship between curvature and velocity that is observed when organisms produce voluntary movement. I would imagine that you expect PCT to explain why (to frame it in neurological terns) the efferent neural impulses that drive the motor outputs that produce voluntary movement produce movement whose speed is a power function of the curvature through which the movement is taking place.

RM: Instead, what you see is me using PCT to show that the observed relationship between curvature and speed in curved movement production is a statistical artifact; a behavioral illusion. Not only might it seem like I am not pushing PCT forward by avoiding the kind of PCT explanation you expect; it might also seem like I am insulting the people who are studying the speed-curvature relationship – the “power law” – by implying that they are too stupid to see that it’s a statistical artifact. And given your response (and that of my PCT “allies”) to my analysis I’m pretty sure that’s exactly the way you feel about it.

RM: But I assure you that I am trying to push PCT forward and I don’t mean to insult anyone’s intelligence. I think the people studying the power law are very smart and very good scientists. Their only problem (as well as that of my “allies”) is that they want a PCT explanation of a phenomenon that PCT doesn’t explain. The power law researchers see the power law as a “generated output” phenomenon. That’s why the power law is taken as evidence of a biological constraint; it is seen as reflecting a constraint on how neural impulses are transformed into movement. But PCT is not an explanation of how outputs are generated or how this generation is “constrained”.

RM: PCT is an explanation of control. PCT starts with the recognition that what we call “behavior” is a process of control. That’s an objective fact, not a theory. PCT explains this fact – The fact of control (per the subtitle of LCS III). Control is a fact that power law researchers and all other non-PCT behavioral scientists don’t recognize and/or don’t understand. This creates a problem that has really been at the heart of the neglect (or outright rejection) of PCT by conventional behavioral scientists. Many of these scientists like the theory of PCT qua theory but they want to use the theory as an explanation of phenomena to which it doesn’t apply – that are actually illusory. And when this is pointed out, it makes these people very mad.

RM: I think you might get a better idea of where I’m coming from if you would read the paper that had the most influence on my own engagement with PCT as a scientific researcher. That Bill’s 1978 Psych Review paper “Quantitative Analysis of Purposive Systems”, which is reprinted starting on p. 129 of LCS I. This paper explains why studying control systems as though they were input-output (or output generating) devices will produce misleading results, an example of which is the “behavioral illusion”. This paper was the “shot over the bow” of the ship of conventional psychology; this is clear from it’s not so subtle subtitle: “Some spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology”. This the paper in which we find the following quote:

BP: “The nightmare of any experimenter is to realize too late that his
results were forced by his experimental design and do not actually pertain to
behavior. This nightmare has a good chance of becoming a reality for a number
of behavioral scientists”.

RM: I think this paper explains why I analyzed the power law the way I did and why you (and my PCT “allies”) have responded so strongly against it. The only way to appreciate my analysis is to have taken the pre-theoretical step of understanding that the purposeful behavior of organisms is a control process; a process of acting to keep variable aspects of the world – controlled variables – in pre-selected states, protected from disturbance. Henry Yin has taken this step, which is why he was able to write the following in his comment about my analysis of the power law:

HY: I believe Bill’s major contribution to science is his elucidation of the behavioral illusion, and this is another good example of it.

RM: I agree. And the only way Bill was able to make this contribution was to first recognize that behavior is a process of control and that a control system analysis of control shows that disturbances to controlled variables will appear to cause responses, when they actually don’t, a fact that Bill referred to as the “behavioral illusion”. Since conventional scientific psychology is based on the idea that stimuli (independent variables) cause responses (dependent variable) the behavioral illusion takes a huge spadeful out from under the foundations of scientific psychology.

RM: I’m afraid this illusion is at the heart of the power law observation. The power law views curvature as an independent variable that affects velocity, the dependent variable. But when behavior is seen as control the movement itself is seen as a controlled variable. In this case, as Henry pointed out, curvature can’t be an independent variable since it is dependent on how the movement is produced, as is the velocity of the movement. So what we are seeing in the power law is a relationship between two dependent variables; two variable aspects of a controlled variable. The value of both of these variables depends, not only each other, but on the outputs that produced the movement. It is this understanding that is the basis of my analysis of the power law.

AGM: i wanted to engage again but i’ll let it pass; there is just too much ego-noise for me to spend my time and energy.

RM: Again. I understand how you feel. I knew I risked upsetting you by posting my analysis of the power law. But I thought that as a young researcher you might find it kind of interesting and, possibly even exciting (the way I, as a relatively new PhD researcher, found the analysis in Bill’s Psych Review article). But that was back in the sixties; these are obviously very different times.

RM: But I wish you all the best.

Best regards

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[rsmarken]

[ From Rick Marken (2016.08.29.1145)]

RM: Henry Yin sent this to me in reply to my message to Alex. He said it was ok for me to copy it to CSGNet.

RM: What a nice birthday present for Bill!

Best

Rick

···

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin
agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

AGM: honestly, this whole csgnet thing looks more an entertainment for you than a serious attempt to continue to push pct forward.

RM: I’m sorry you feel that way. I do find discussions on CSGNet entertaining but I don’t think that makes them any less serious. And I am certainly trying to push PCT forward. But I can understand why you think I am not doing that.

RM: To you (and apparently everyone else involved in this discussion, with the notable exception of Henry Yin) pushing PCT forward would mean showing how PCT explains the relationship between curvature and velocity that is observed when organisms produce
voluntary movement. I would imagine that you expect PCT to explain why (to frame it in neurological terns) the efferent neural impulses that drive the motor outputs that produce voluntary movement produce movement whose speed is a power function of the curvature
through which the movement is taking place.

RM: Instead, what you see is me using PCT to show that the observed relationship between curvature and speed in curved movement production is a statistical artifact; a behavioral illusion. Not only might it seem like I am not pushing PCT forward by avoiding
the kind of PCT explanation you expect; it might also seem like I am insulting the people who are studying the speed-curvature relationship – the “power law” – by implying that they are too stupid to see that it’s a statistical artifact. And given your response
(and that of my PCT “allies”) to my analysis I’m pretty sure that’s exactly the way you feel about it.

RM: But I assure you that I am trying to push PCT forward and I don’t mean to insult anyone’s intelligence. I think the people studying the power law are very smart and very good scientists. Their only problem (as well as that of my “allies”) is that they
want a PCT explanation of a phenomenon that PCT doesn’t explain. The power law researchers see the power law as a “generated output” phenomenon. That’s why the power law is taken as evidence of a biological constraint; it is seen as reflecting a constraint
on how neural impulses are transformed into movement. But PCT is not an explanation of how outputs are generated or how this generation is “constrained”.

RM: PCT is an explanation of control. PCT starts with the recognition that what we call “behavior” is a process of control. That’s an objective fact, not a theory. PCT explains this fact – The fact of control (per the subtitle of LCS III). Control is
a fact that power law researchers and all other non-PCT behavioral scientists don’t recognize and/or don’t understand. This creates a problem that has really been at the heart of the neglect (or outright rejection) of PCT by conventional behavioral scientists.
Many of these scientists like the theory of PCT qua theory but they want to use the theory as an explanation of phenomena to which it doesn’t apply – that are actually illusory. And when this is pointed out, it makes these people very mad.

RM: I think you might get a better idea of where I’m coming from if you would read the paper that had the most influence on my own engagement with PCT as a scientific researcher. That Bill’s 1978 Psych Review paper “Quantitative Analysis of Purposive Systems”,
which is reprinted starting on p. 129 of LCS I. This paper explains why studying control systems as though they were input-output (or output generating) devices will produce misleading results, an example of which is the “behavioral illusion”. This paper was
the “shot over the bow” of the ship of conventional psychology; this is clear from it’s not so subtle subtitle: “Some spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology”. This the paper in which we find the following quote:

BP: “The nightmare of any experimenter is to realize too late that his results were forced by his experimental design and do not actually pertain to behavior. This nightmare has a good
chance of becoming a reality for a number of behavioral scientists”.

RM: I think this paper explains why I analyzed the power law the way I did and why you (and my PCT “allies”) have responded so strongly against it. The only way to appreciate my analysis is to have taken the pre-theoretical step of understanding that the
purposeful behavior of organisms is a control process; a process of acting to keep variable aspects of the world – controlled variables – in pre-selected states, protected from disturbance. Henry Yin has taken this step, which is why he was able to write
the following in his comment about my analysis of the power law:

HY: I believe Bill’s major contribution to science is his elucidation of the behavioral illusion, and this is another good example of it.

RM: I agree. And the only way Bill was able to make this contribution was to first recognize that behavior is a process of control and that a control system analysis of control shows that disturbances to controlled variables will appear to cause responses,
when they actually don’t, a fact that Bill referred to as the “behavioral illusion”. Since conventional scientific psychology is based on the idea that stimuli (independent variables) cause responses (dependent variable) the behavioral illusion takes a huge
spadeful out from under the foundations of scientific psychology.

RM: I’m afraid this illusion is at the heart of the power law observation. The power law views curvature as an independent variable that affects velocity, the dependent variable. But when behavior is seen as control the movement itself is seen as a controlled
variable. In this case, as Henry pointed out, curvature can’t be an independent variable since it is dependent on how the movement is produced, as is the velocity of the movement. So what we are seeing in the power law is a relationship between two dependent
variables; two variable aspects of a controlled variable. The value of both of these variables depends, not only each other, but on the outputs that produced the movement. It is this understanding that is the basis of my analysis of the power law.

AGM: i wanted to engage again but i’ll let it pass; there is just too much ego-noise for me to spend my time and energy.

RM: Again. I understand how you feel. I knew I risked upsetting you by posting my analysis of the power law. But I thought that as a young researcher you might find it kind of interesting and, possibly even exciting (the way I, as a relatively new PhD
researcher, found the analysis in Bill’s Psych Review article). But that was back in the sixties; these are obviously very different times.

RM: But I wish you all the best.

Best regards

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[Alex_Gomez-Marin]

pct’s major contribution can be its major shortcoming: that whoever does not agree with an interpretation of sanctioned pcters is right away convicted to be commiting a behavioral fallacy and now it is his burden to prove himself innocent, that requiring to ultimately concede that of course he was wrong and the pcters were right – it couldn’t have been any other way cause it was so by construction from the beginning.

example: rick’s systematic bogus claims, math mistakes, bibliography ignorance, and stubbornness = he is trully seeing and denouncing another behavioral illusion to make pct’s revolutionary empire greater, while all the arguments, explanations and re-statement of facts by the rest = we are not getting pct because we don’t agree with rick and his deluxe supporter henry and because we don’t deem anything we see that does not cite power and rick 10 times a behavioral illusion. and, of course, our reactions and complaint further support their claims because we are afraid, ignorant and resistant to revolutions…

bravo

···

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin
agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

AGM: honestly, this whole csgnet thing looks more an entertainment for you than a serious attempt to continue to push pct forward.

RM: I’m sorry you feel that way. I do find discussions on CSGNet entertaining but I don’t think that makes them any less serious. And I am certainly trying to push PCT forward. But I can understand why you think I am not doing that.

RM: To you (and apparently everyone else involved in this discussion, with the notable exception of Henry Yin) pushing PCT forward would mean showing how PCT explains the relationship between curvature and velocity that is observed when organisms produce
voluntary movement. I would imagine that you expect PCT to explain why (to frame it in neurological terns) the efferent neural impulses that drive the motor outputs that produce voluntary movement produce movement whose speed is a power function of the curvature
through which the movement is taking place.

RM: Instead, what you see is me using PCT to show that the observed relationship between curvature and speed in curved movement production is a statistical artifact; a behavioral illusion. Not only might it seem like I am not pushing PCT forward by avoiding
the kind of PCT explanation you expect; it might also seem like I am insulting the people who are studying the speed-curvature relationship – the “power law” – by implying that they are too stupid to see that it’s a statistical artifact. And given your response
(and that of my PCT “allies”) to my analysis I’m pretty sure that’s exactly the way you feel about it.

RM: But I assure you that I am trying to push PCT forward and I don’t mean to insult anyone’s intelligence. I think the people studying the power law are very smart and very good scientists. Their only problem (as well as that of my “allies”) is that they
want a PCT explanation of a phenomenon that PCT doesn’t explain. The power law researchers see the power law as a “generated output” phenomenon. That’s why the power law is taken as evidence of a biological constraint; it is seen as reflecting a constraint
on how neural impulses are transformed into movement. But PCT is not an explanation of how outputs are generated or how this generation is “constrained”.

RM: PCT is an explanation of control. PCT starts with the recognition that what we call “behavior” is a process of control. That’s an objective fact, not a theory. PCT explains this fact – The fact of control (per the subtitle of LCS III). Control is
a fact that power law researchers and all other non-PCT behavioral scientists don’t recognize and/or don’t understand. This creates a problem that has really been at the heart of the neglect (or outright rejection) of PCT by conventional behavioral scientists.
Many of these scientists like the theory of PCT qua theory but they want to use the theory as an explanation of phenomena to which it doesn’t apply – that are actually illusory. And when this is pointed out, it makes these people very mad.

RM: I think you might get a better idea of where I’m coming from if you would read the paper that had the most influence on my own engagement with PCT as a scientific researcher. That Bill’s 1978 Psych Review paper “Quantitative Analysis of Purposive Systems”,
which is reprinted starting on p. 129 of LCS I. This paper explains why studying control systems as though they were input-output (or output generating) devices will produce misleading results, an example of which is the “behavioral illusion”. This paper was
the “shot over the bow” of the ship of conventional psychology; this is clear from it’s not so subtle subtitle: “Some spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology”. This the paper in which we find the following quote:

BP: “The nightmare of any experimenter is to realize too late that his results were forced by his experimental design and do not actually pertain to behavior. This nightmare has a good
chance of becoming a reality for a number of behavioral scientists”.

RM: I think this paper explains why I analyzed the power law the way I did and why you (and my PCT “allies”) have responded so strongly against it. The only way to appreciate my analysis is to have taken the pre-theoretical step of understanding that the
purposeful behavior of organisms is a control process; a process of acting to keep variable aspects of the world – controlled variables – in pre-selected states, protected from disturbance. Henry Yin has taken this step, which is why he was able to write
the following in his comment about my analysis of the power law:

HY: I believe Bill’s major contribution to science is his elucidation of the behavioral illusion, and this is another good example of it.

RM: I agree. And the only way Bill was able to make this contribution was to first recognize that behavior is a process of control and that a control system analysis of control shows that disturbances to controlled variables will appear to cause responses,
when they actually don’t, a fact that Bill referred to as the “behavioral illusion”. Since conventional scientific psychology is based on the idea that stimuli (independent variables) cause responses (dependent variable) the behavioral illusion takes a huge
spadeful out from under the foundations of scientific psychology.

RM: I’m afraid this illusion is at the heart of the power law observation. The power law views curvature as an independent variable that affects velocity, the dependent variable. But when behavior is seen as control the movement itself is seen as a controlled
variable. In this case, as Henry pointed out, curvature can’t be an independent variable since it is dependent on how the movement is produced, as is the velocity of the movement. So what we are seeing in the power law is a relationship between two dependent
variables; two variable aspects of a controlled variable. The value of both of these variables depends, not only each other, but on the outputs that produced the movement. It is this understanding that is the basis of my analysis of the power law.

AGM: i wanted to engage again but i’ll let it pass; there is just too much ego-noise for me to spend my time and energy.

RM: Again. I understand how you feel. I knew I risked upsetting you by posting my analysis of the power law. But I thought that as a young researcher you might find it kind of interesting and, possibly even exciting (the way I, as a relatively new PhD
researcher, found the analysis in Bill’s Psych Review article). But that was back in the sixties; these are obviously very different times.

RM: But I wish you all the best.

Best regards

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2016.08.29.16.44]

pct's major contribution can be its major shortcoming: that whoever does not agree with an interpretation of sanctioned pcters is right away convicted to be commiting a behavioral fallacy and now it is his burden to prove himself innocent, that requiring to ultimately concede that of course he was wrong and the pcters were right -- it couldn't have been any other way cause it was so by construction from the beginning.

example: rick's systematic bogus claims, math mistakes, bibliography ignorance, and stubbornness = he is trully seeing and denouncing another behavioral illusion to make pct's revolutionary empire greater, while all the arguments, explanations and re-statement of facts by the rest = we are not getting pct because we don't agree with rick and his deluxe supporter henry and because we don't deem anything we see that does not cite power and rick 10 times a behavioral illusion. and, of course, our reactions and complaint further support their claims because we are afraid, ignorant and resistant to revolutions..

bravo

I don't think you should damn PCT because of one false prophet who claims he has had a direct revelation from God. Not everyone is so closed-minded. As for Henry Yin's comment, I think the core of it is "In my opinion, viewing curvature as input and velocity as output is exactly the kind of fallacy that results in the behavioral illusion." Remember that Henry doesn't read CSGnet, so I suppose he is responding to direct mail from Rick explaining the Rick-view of the Universe. The question I would ask is whether anyone other than Rick has thought of curvature as input and velocity as output.

Henry is perfectly right about Bill's pointing out the ubiquity of the behavioural illusion, but I think he is equally wrong that the curvature to preferred-speed relationship has been shown to be an example of it. In my view, it may or may not be eventually found to be an example of the behavioural illusion, but to determine whether it is requires correct analysis and the use of (as Henry says) the TCV -- as I advocated for some weeks. Before giving up on the assumption that Rick will not learn and others already know.

Yes, if you understand PCT, you understand the behavioural illusion. A month or so ago, I started a tutorial message on the subject, but decided that it probably would only confuse the so-called "debate", the only point of which was to demonstrate to the CSGnet membership (other than Rick) that Rick's analysis was faulty in the critical respect that he continued to assert that a formal (intervening) variable was the same thing as was measured by experimenters.

You understand when and to what extent the behavioural illusion applies in a particular situation when you know what is being controlled and how accurately it is being controlled. In this case, since we know that sometimes the relationship between curvature and velocity follows a 1/3 power law, while sometimes it follows a 1/4 power law, and sometimes it follows no power law at all, I'd say that the preponderance of evidence is against it being a behavioural illusion. But that's not proof. We need to know what is being controlled and whether that and variations in the environmental feedback pathway determine which of the experimentally discovered power laws is being followed.

Martin

···

On 2016/08/29 4:02 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin wrote:

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.29.1610)]

···

AGM: pct’s major contribution can be its major shortcoming:…

AGM: example: rick’s systematic bogus claims, math mistakes, bibliography ignorance, and stubbornness…
Martin Taylor (2016.08.29.16.44)–

MT: I don’t think you should damn PCT because of one false prophet who claims he has had a direct revelation from God.

RM: I presume you are referring to me. If so, when exactly was it that I became a “false prophet”. Before or after Bill passed away? Or have I always been one?

MT: Henry doesn’t read CSGnet, so I suppose he is responding to direct mail from Rick explaining the Rick-view of the Universe.

RM: Nope, all Henry got were copies of a few of my CSGNet posts.

MT: Henry is perfectly right about Bill’s pointing out the ubiquity of the behavioural illusion,

RM: Henry noted that Bill had pointed out the existence of the behavioral illusion; not its ubiquity. PCT exposes the existence of the behavioral illusion. The illusion is not ubiquitous because PCT also shows that it only occurs when you are observing the behavior of a control system. There are many behaving things in the world that are not control systems.

MT: may not be eventually found to be an example of the behavioural illusion, but to determine whether it is requires correct analysis and the use of (as Henry says) the TCV – as I advocated for some weeks. Before giving up on the assumption that Rick will not learn and others already know.

RM: Henry didn’t say that you need the TCV in order to know that the power law is a behavioral illusion because you don’t. All you need to know is that the movement under study is produced by a control system. And if it was produced by a living organism, it was produced by a control system.

MT: Yes, if you understand PCT, you understand the behavioural illusion. A month or so ago, I started a tutorial message on the subject,

RM: Well, I’d sure like to see that.

MT: but decided that it probably would only confuse the so-called “debate”, the only point of which was to demonstrate to the CSGnet membership (other than Rick) that Rick’s analysis was faulty in the critical respect that he continued to assert that a formal (intervening) variable was the same thing as was measured by experimenters.

RM: I have no idea what this means. The things you assert that I assert are most peculiar.

MT: You understand when and to what extent the behavioural illusion applies in a particular situation when you know what is being controlled and how accurately it is being controlled.

RM: The behavioral illusion is not something that applies to a certain extent or not. It’s something that is experienced, like an optical illusion. A person is experiencing the behavioral illusion when a variable external to a control system appears to be the cause of that system’s output. When you see an ice cube near the thermostat cause the heater to go on, you are experiencing a behavioral illusion; when you see a puff of air to the eye cause a blink, you are experiencing a behavioral illusion; when you see a curve in a person’s hand motion cause a particular velocity of movement, you are experiencing a behavioral illusion.

MT: In this case, since we know that sometimes the relationship between curvature and velocity follows a 1/3 power law, while sometimes it follows a 1/4 power law, and sometimes it follows no power law at all, I’d say that the preponderance of evidence is against it being a behavioural illusion.

RM: The power of the relationship is irrelevant to the existence of the behavioral illusion. Because you see the power law as showing that curvature causes movement to slow, you are experiencing a behavioral illusion. The different powers that are found for the relationship between curvature and velocity are just different “flavors” of the illusion.

RM: Anyway, get back to me on that “false prophet” thing. With a very humble apology would be nice.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.31.1240)]

···

RM: Since Martin’s answer (and/or apology) doesn’t seem to be forthcoming, I’ll answer him with a quote from God himself (Bill Powers) that is evidence that I am not a false prophet – or, at least, wasn’t one. I was reminded recently (this morning, actually) that Bill wrote the Foreword to my first collection of papers on PCT, “Mind Readings”. So I re-read that Foreword (it almost made me cry) and was unable to find anything in it about my apostacy. Indeed, Bill seems to have kind of liked the book. One of the interesting things he says in that Foreword is the following:

“Nearly every model in these papers, which did make it past the referees, is the sort that ought to convey to the reader a straightforward message: if the phenomenon you see here really works as this model shows it to work, then a whole segment of the scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket”. – WTP

RM: It seems to me that those who are working hard to cast me as a non-scientific “false prophet” for thinking that my PCT model of the power law shows that this particular segment of the scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket may end up in the nightmarish situation of realizing that they are a bunch of pots calling the kettle black.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

AGM: pct’s major contribution can be its major shortcoming:…

AGM: example: rick’s systematic bogus claims, math mistakes, bibliography ignorance, and stubbornness…

MT: I don’t think you should damn PCT because of one false prophet who claims he has had a direct revelation from God.

RM: I presume you are referring to me. If so, when exactly was it that I became a “false prophet”. Before or after Bill passed away? Or have I always been one?

[_Erling_Jorgensen]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2016.08.31 1545 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2016.08.31.1240)

Hi Rick,

I have certainly appreciated many of your PCT models over the years & learned a lot from them. As I think I told you once, your original write-up of the spreadsheet model (I don’t have references in front of my just now) was very formative for me seeing hierarchical control loops in action, iteration by iteration. I also know Bill deeply appreciated & respected much of your work.

The difficulty I have with your present model on the power-law issue is that I cannot (yet) trust the conclusions because I cannot trust the math. As many others have pointed out, including myself, there is some kind of fundamental error going on in how you treat the math. So for me, all questions about conclusions or possible PCT explanations for whether a power-law relation is a real phenomenon or not are simply suspended & left hanging. They cannot even be asked until the math is straightened out.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight. Cube roots are not really my thing, so I have a hard time getting an intuitive sense of the relationship that is being posed. I think you’ve seen enough of my writings to know I am not secretly vying for a stimulus-response explanation to win the day. To pose some kind of seeming regularity between two quantities does not simply transform one of them into an “independent” variable causing a “dependent” one. For those of us in a PCT camp, to see a regularity where it seems there should not be one immediately makes us start to think of “control.” But to take that further with any rigor means no short cuts with the math!

I know you believe you’ve handled the equations properly, & you have one relative & one PCT researcher to back you up. But you also have repeated attempts from other colleagues that you respect trying to raise a serious question about an earlier pre-conclusion stage of your analysis. That in itself ought to encourage slowing the process down, & not trusting (or even stating!) the hoped-for conclusions until the method can be sorted out. That is the kind of humility Bill Powers always worked with, & why we all admired him so much as a scientist, aside from being such a grace-filled human being!

I am not looking to reignite the border wars between your model & those who question it. I am clarifying why I am not yet intrigued by your proposed answer because I am still back somewhere with your method. And I am validating Bill’s assessment that you are (habitually) a very fine modeler indeed.

All the best,

Erling

Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com 8/31/2016 3:42 PM >>>

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.31.1240)]

AGM: pct’s major contribution can be its major shortcoming:…

AGM: example: rick’s systematic bogus claims, math mistakes, bibliography ignorance, and stubbornness…

MT: I don’t think you should damn PCT because of one false prophet who claims he has had a direct revelation from God.

RM: I presume you are referring to me. If so, when exactly was it that I became a “false prophet”. Before or after Bill passed away? Or have I always been one?

RM: Since Martin’s answer (and/or apology) doesn’t seem to be forthcoming, I’ll answer him with a quote from God himself (Bill Powers) that is evidence that I am not a false prophet – or, at least, wasn’t one. I was reminded recently (this morning, actually) that Bill wrote the Foreword to my first collection of papers on PCT, “Mind Readings”. So I re-read that Foreword (it almost made me cry) and was unable to find anything in it about my apostacy. Indeed, Bill seems to have kind of liked the book. One of the interesting things he says in that Foreword is the following:

“Nearly every model in these papers, which did make it past the referees, is the sort that ought to convey to the reader a straightforward message: if the phenomenon you see here really works as this model shows it to work, then a whole segment of the scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket”. – WTP

RM: It seems to me that those who are working hard to cast me as a non-scientific “false prophet” for thinking that my PCT model of the power law shows that this particular segment of the scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket may end up in the nightmarish situation of realizing that they are a bunch of pots calling the kettle black.

Best regards

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

  NOTICE: This e-mail communication (including any attachments) is CONFIDENTIAL and the materials contained herein are PRIVILEGED and intended only for disclosure to or use by the person(s) listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient(s), nor a person responsible for the delivery of this communication to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by using the "reply" feature or by calling me at the number listed above, and then immediately delete this message and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.

[Alex_Gomez-Marin]

rick, if i had the great chance to listen to your god speak as his prophet does, have no doubt that i would say to him the same i say to his prophet.

···

RM: Since Martin’s answer (and/or apology) doesn’t seem to be forthcoming, I’ll answer him with a quote from God himself (Bill Powers) that is evidence that I am not a false prophet – or, at least, wasn’t one. I was reminded recently (this morning, actually) that Bill wrote the Foreword to my first collection of papers on PCT, “Mind Readings”. So I re-read that Foreword (it almost made me cry) and was unable to find anything in it about my apostacy. Indeed, Bill seems to have kind of liked the book. One of the interesting things he says in that Foreword is the following:

“Nearly every model in these papers, which did make it past the referees, is the sort that ought to convey to the reader a straightforward message: if the phenomenon you see here really works as this model shows it to work, then a whole segment of the scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket”. – WTP

RM: It seems to me that those who are working hard to cast me as a non-scientific “false prophet” for thinking that my PCT model of the power law shows that this particular segment of the scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket may end up in the nightmarish situation of realizing that they are a bunch of pots calling the kettle black.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

AGM: pct’s major contribution can be its major shortcoming:…

AGM: example: rick’s systematic bogus claims, math mistakes, bibliography ignorance, and stubbornness…

MT: I don’t think you should damn PCT because of one false prophet who claims he has had a direct revelation from God.

RM: I presume you are referring to me. If so, when exactly was it that I became a “false prophet”. Before or after Bill passed away? Or have I always been one?

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.31.1750)]

···

Erling Jorgensen (2016.08.31 1545 EDT)–

EJ: The difficulty I have with your present model on the power-law issue is that I cannot (yet) trust the conclusions because I cannot trust the math. As many others have pointed out, including myself, there is some kind of fundamental error going on in how you treat the math.

RM: But how could you know that there is an error – or that others are correctly pointing out an error – if, as you say later in your post:

EJ: Cube roots are not really my thing, so I have a hard time getting an intuitive sense of the relationship that is being posed.

RM: As I said several times before, these are the computational formulas I found for computing velocity (V) and curvature (R):

RM: These are formulas I got from one of the main references on the power law that Alex sent. In that article they studied the power law that resulted from log-log regression of R on V for simulated elliptical hand movements. When I created simulated ellipses and measured instantaneous velocity and curvature using V and R calculated as above and did a log-log regression of R on V I got the same results they did. So I’m pretty sure the above are the formulas power law researchers use to calculate V and R. If so, then my derivation of the mathematical relationship between V and R is correct: V = D^1/3 R^1/3 , where D is |dXd²Y-d²X*dY|. If, instead of R and V, one prefers measuring velocity and curvature as A and C then these are easily derived from V and R: A = V/R and C = 1/R.

RM: I think Martin has said there is an error in my math because the derivatives in the computation of R are spatial whereas those in the computation of V are temporal. But I’ve seen nothing in the published articles on the power law showing that that’s the case; the only published formulas for both R and V that I have seen in the literature are the one’s above.

RM: If, indeed, V and R are not computed as shown above, then I would appreciate it if someone could point me to a place in the power law literature where they give the correct formulas for computing V and R.

Best regards

Rick

I think you’ve seen enough of my writings to know I am not secretly vying for a stimulus-response explanation to win the day. To pose some kind of seeming regularity between two quantities does not simply transform one of them into an “independent” variable causing a “dependent” one. For those of us in a PCT camp, to see a regularity where it seems there should not be one immediately makes us start to think of “control.” But to take that further with any rigor means no short cuts with the math!

I know you believe you’ve handled the equations properly, & you have one relative & one PCT researcher to back you up. But you also have repeated attempts from other colleagues that you respect trying to raise a serious question about an earlier pre-conclusion stage of your analysis. That in itself ought to encourage slowing the process down, & not trusting (or even stating!) the hoped-for conclusions until the method can be sorted out. That is the kind of humility Bill Powers always worked with, & why we all admired him so much as a scientist, aside from being such a grace-filled human being!

I am not looking to reignite the border wars between your model & those who question it. I am clarifying why I am not yet intrigued by your proposed answer because I am still back somewhere with your method. And I am validating Bill’s assessment that you are (habitually) a very fine modeler indeed.

All the best,

Erling

Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com 8/31/2016 3:42 PM >>>

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.31.1240)]

  NOTICE: This e-mail communication (including any attachments) is CONFIDENTIAL and the materials contained herein are PRIVILEGED and intended only for disclosure to or use by the person(s) listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient(s), nor a person responsible for the delivery of this communication to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by using the "reply" feature or by calling me at the number listed above, and then immediately delete this message and all attachments from your computer. Thank you.

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

RM: Since Martin’s answer (and/or apology) doesn’t seem to be forthcoming, I’ll answer him with a quote from God himself (Bill Powers) that is evidence that I am not a false prophet – or, at least, wasn’t one. I was reminded recently (this morning, actually) that Bill wrote the Foreword to my first collection of papers on PCT, “Mind Readings”. So I re-read that Foreword (it almost made me cry) and was unable to find anything in it about my apostacy. Indeed, Bill seems to have kind of liked the book. One of the interesting things he says in that Foreword is the following:

“Nearly every model in these papers, which did make it past the referees, is the sort that ought to convey to the reader a straightforward message: if the phenomenon you see here really works as this model shows it to work, then a whole segment of the scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket”. – WTP

RM: It seems to me that those who are working hard to cast me as a non-scientific “false prophet” for thinking that my PCT model of the power law shows that this particular segment of the scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket may end up in the nightmarish situation of realizing that they are a bunch of pots calling the kettle black.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

AGM: pct’s major contribution can be its major shortcoming:…

AGM: example: rick’s systematic bogus claims, math mistakes, bibliography ignorance, and stubbornness…

MT: I don’t think you should damn PCT because of one false prophet who claims he has had a direct revelation from God.

RM: I presume you are referring to me. If so, when exactly was it that I became a “false prophet”. Before or after Bill passed away? Or have I always been one?

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2016.08.31.18.08]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2016.08.31 1545 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2016.08.31.1240)

Hi Rick,

    I have certainly appreciated many of your PCT models over the

years & learned a lot from them. As I think I told you
once, your original write-up of the spreadsheet model (I don’t
have references in front of my just now) was very formative for
me seeing hierarchical control loops in action, iteration by
iteration. I also know Bill deeply appreciated & respected
much of your work.

I totally agree.

    The difficulty I have with your present model on the

power-law issue is that I cannot (yet) trust the conclusions
because I cannot trust the math. As many others have pointed
out, including myself, there is some kind of fundamental error
going on in how you treat the math. So for me, all questions
about conclusions or possible PCT explanations for whether a
power-law relation is a real phenomenon or not are simply
suspended & left hanging. They cannot even be asked until
the math is straightened out.

I don't think that's even a question. Whether the various power law

circumstances turn out to be examples of behavioural illusions is
really beside the point. Whether they are or whether they are not,
either way the modelling question is still to determine what
perception is being controlled, and what are the parameters of the
control model. What Alex originally asked was whether PCT could
provide an explanation for why, when any kind of relationship
between velocity and curvature is physically and physiologically
possible, from pure randomness to linearity to any function at all,
most of his fly larva produced a velocity roughly proportional to
the 1/4 power of the radius of curvature.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight.

I wish there were no fight. It wastes time for the readers and takes

energy away from issues that matter. In my personal effort to end
it, I have avoided reading anything posted by Rick over the last 10
days unless it had a novel subject line or was included as a quote
from another poster. His messages had proved too much of a
disturbance to a perception I control, and methods involving
dispassionate application of mathematics, spreadsheet demonstration
and appeals to the experimental observations having had no effect,
reorganization led me to use words that have conflicted with my
control of my own self-image. I don’t want to go through that again,
and have trusted instead that the history of the different
approaches, eight of which have been enumerated by Alex, would
suffice for everyone but Rick to realize that his misinterpretation
of his perfectly correct rearrangement of the equation for curvature
leaves us with no evidence whatever on either Alex’s question or on
whether the observations are examples of the behavioural illusion.
That’s why I quit.

    For those of us in a PCT camp, to see a regularity where it

seems there should not be one immediately makes us start to
think of “control.” But to take that further with any rigor
means no short cuts with the math!

Quite so.

    I know you believe you've handled the equations properly,

& you have one relative & one PCT researcher to back you
up.

I also believe he has reconfigured the curvature equation correctly,

as I have said more than once, going back nearly to the beginning of
the curvilinearity discussion. That’s not the problem. The problem
is and has been that Rick’s whole position depends on taking two
variables commonly symbolized by “V” as representing the same
real-world thing when they don’t. He does that right at the
beginning of his derivation, and his error was noted by Alex as
early as July 17. The fact that they don’t represent the same thing
is self-evident from the fact that one of them creates a tautology
in his equations, while the other doesn’t. That, by itself, should
have ended the “fight” long ago, without the need for all the other
demonstrations.

    But you also have repeated attempts from other colleagues

that you respect trying to raise a serious question about an
earlier pre-conclusion stage of your analysis. That in itself
ought to encourage slowing the process down, & not trusting
(or even stating!) the hoped-for conclusions until the method
can be sorted out. That is the kind of humility Bill Powers
always worked with, & why we all admired him so much as a
scientist, aside from being such a grace-filled human being!

    I am not looking to reignite the border wars between your

model & those who question it. I am clarifying why I am not
yet intrigued by your proposed answer because I am still back
somewhere with your method. And I am validating Bill’s
assessment that you are (habitually) a very fine modeler
indeed.

With which I think you will find little argument.

Martin

···

rsmarken@gmail.com

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.25.1015)]

Rick Marken (2016.08.24.0850)
RM: What I think would be most productive now would be for me to drop out of this discussion of the power law. This should certainly resolve the conflict over the power law.
RM: What I suggest is that we hit the reset button and start all over from your initial question, but without me in the mix. Your initial question, Alex, was excellent:

AGM: Any ideas why or how "the control of perception" may give rise to this power law constraining geometry and kinematics in humans, and now in fruit fly larvae?
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__biorxiv.org_content_early_2016_07_05_062166&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=-OFy-JHbqmqjPN7VJIaj6uifem4QT5QpQEuzfCgF9XM&s=G9VeCsmdOa-YM0636O1vB6s11HQZlDpdXEdEbvGPD4k&e=&gt;&gt;&gt; http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/07/05/062166

RM: Now that I am no longer in this discussion, I predict that there will be no ideas forthcoming in answer to Alex's question. Silence will prevail, showing that it was all about trying to show that my idea is wrong rather than showing that their idea is right; because I believe they have no idea.
RM: I hope my prediction is as wrong as they think my analysis is.
Best
Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
"The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves." -- William T. Powers

[Alex_Gomez-Marin]

what an elegant way, dear rick, to retire for a while from the spread-shit power-law discussion, than suggesting that nobody but you in the csgNet can have ideas. bravo!

···

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.25.1015)]

Rick Marken (2016.08.24.0850)

RM: Now that I am no longer in this discussion, I predict that there will be no ideas forthcoming in answer to Alex’s question. Silence will prevail, showing that it was all about trying to show that my idea is wrong rather than showing that their idea is right; because I believe they have no idea.

RM: I hope my prediction is as wrong as they think my analysis is.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

RM: What I think would be most productive now would be for me to drop out of this discussion of the power law. This should certainly resolve the conflict over the power law.

RM: What I suggest is that we hit the reset button and start all over from your initial question, but without me in the mix. Your initial question, Alex, was excellent:

AGM: Any ideas why or how “the control of perception” may give rise to this power law constraining geometry and kinematics in humans, and now in fruit fly larvae?
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/07/05/062166

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.25.1510)]

···

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

AGM: what an elegant way, dear rick, to retire for a while from the spread-shit power-law discussion, than suggesting that nobody but you in the csgNet can have ideas. bravo!

RM:I didn’t mean to imply that nobody but me on CSGNet can have ideas. I just predicted that, since I have now left the power law discussion, there wouldn’t be any ideas forthcoming in answer to your question about why or how the control of perception may give rise to the power law. I did say that to be provocative because I would like to hear how others would answer your question (note that I said that I hoped my prediction would be wrong) but also because I would like to hear something other than that my ideas are all wrong. I would like to know what ideas people think are right: why or how might the control of perception (PCT) give rise to the power law? Inquiring minds want to know;-)

Best regards

Rick

On Thursday, 25 August 2016, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.25.1015)]

Rick Marken (2016.08.24.0850)

RM: Now that I am no longer in this discussion, I predict that there will be no ideas forthcoming in answer to Alex’s question. Silence will prevail, showing that it was all about trying to show that my idea is wrong rather than showing that their idea is right; because I believe they have no idea.

RM: I hope my prediction is as wrong as they think my analysis is.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

RM: What I think would be most productive now would be for me to drop out of this discussion of the power law. This should certainly resolve the conflict over the power law.

RM: What I suggest is that we hit the reset button and start all over from your initial question, but without me in the mix. Your initial question, Alex, was excellent:

AGM: Any ideas why or how “the control of perception” may give rise to this power law constraining geometry and kinematics in humans, and now in fruit fly larvae?
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/07/05/062166

[Abbott]

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.08.26.0915 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2016.08.25.1015) –

Rick Marken (2016.08.24.0850)

RM: What I think would be most productive now would be for me to drop out of this discussion of the power law. This should certainly resolve the conflict over the power law.

RM: What I suggest is that we hit the reset button and start all over from your initial question, but without me in the mix. Your initial question, Alex, was excellent:

AGM: Any ideas why or how “the control of perception” may give rise to this power law constraining geometry and kinematics in humans, and now in fruit fly larvae?
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/07/05/062166

RM: Now that I am no longer in this discussion, I predict that there will be no ideas forthcoming in answer to Alex’s question. Silence will prevail, showing that it was all about trying to show that my idea is wrong rather than showing that their idea is right; because I believe they have no idea.

RM: I hope my prediction is as wrong as they think my analysis is.

BA: When this message came in I had already decided to end my participation on this thread. Prior to that, as you will recall, I did suggest that answering Alex’s question would probably require several different PCT-based models specific to each case in which the power law has been found to hold. At present I am swamped with other pressing work, but I have promised Alex that I would turn my attention to the problem when time permits.

BA: As for your prediction, Martin and I have already made abundantly clear that our rather strenuous and protracted opposition to your proposal is based on the fact that it is a demonstrably crackpot idea that has to potential to inflict serious damage on the credibility PCT, particularly because it is being proposed by someone who is among PCT’s most ardent and prolific supporters. As has already been noted by Kent McClelland, this constitutes an extreme disturbance to our desire to see PCT taken seriously by interested members of the broader scientific community, such as Alex. If indeed this is the variable that we have been controlling for, then control theory predicts that we will stop attempting to counteract that disturbance.

BA: At any rate, it is not necessary to propose an alternative model in order to discredit the one you proposed; it is only necessary to demonstrate the mathematical fallacy of your analysis, and this we have done.

BA: And now, I must turn my attention to those other pressing matters.

Bruce

[Kent]

[From Kent McClelland (2016.26.1100)]

Hi Alex,

Well, I have an idea, although I won’t be offended if you tell me it’s hopelessly naive. And, I’m sorry to say, it does involve a spreadsheet simulation (mine, not Rick’s).

I stayed out of the substantive part of this discussion from the beginning, because the topic is pretty far from my own academic area (sociology), and I’m no great shakes when it comes to manipulating mathematical equations. But I do have a fair
amount of experience playing with simulation models of control-system behavior, and the suggestion I have to offer is based on that experience.

If I understand the power-law articles that I’ve looked at, the phenomenon to be explained is that when an organism is making a controlled motion, the speed of movement decreases as the curves get tighter or the angles to be negotiated get sharper,
in a fashion that’s described by the so-called power law. (From my PCT background I’m a bit skeptical about “laws� of behavior.) My argument is that when control systems follow a path that involves increasingly tighter curves or sharper angles, they have to
“naturally� slow down to stay in control of their perceptions. The particular model I’ve played around with involves angles, rather than curves, for the sake of providing a clear demonstration of the principle, but I’m guessing the same principle is at work
for curves, as well.

I’ve done a simulation of a control-system tracking movement in an x-y plane in which the path to be followed consists of a series of line segments of the same length set at increasingly sharp angles from each other. I constructed the line segments
by taking varying angles of the radii of a circle, and as the segments are connected together each angle in the path to be negotiated is 0.1 radians larger than the last. I used this path as to create a set of references for my control systems to follow (more
or less like a tracking experiment). All the line segments are exactly the same length, because they’re all created from radii of the same circle. Here is a graph of this reference path:

PastedGraphic-1.pdf (26.7 KB)

ATT000011.htm (56 Bytes)

PastedGraphic-2.pdf (28.1 KB)

ATT00002.htm (55 Bytes)

PastedGraphic-4.pdf (29.9 KB)

ATT00003.htm (55 Bytes)

XY POWER-LAW SIMULATIONS.xlsx (90.9 KB)

ATT00004.htm (55 Bytes)

[Blake_Ashley]

[from Blake Ashley (2016.26.953)]

At the risk of displaying my ignorance, I'll weigh in.

I presume that control circuits have variable processing speed, that
the speed changes as needed to control perception against a disturbance,
that there is an upper limit to the processing speed due to the
structure of the nervous system, and that the processing speed will
generally be as low as possible to control perception because to process
faster than needed would waste resources and the body generally doesn't
do that . So in the case of a straight line, the processing speed
needed in the control circuit to keep the perception of "finger on line"
in coincidence with the reference perception is relatively slow. When
the line begins to curve, the control circuit must operate at a higher
rate to control the perception of finger-on-curve. There are clearly
limits within the control circuit as to how fast it can process and also
perhaps limits within the control circuit as to how fast it can change
the processing rate. The power law may be a manifestation of
neurological limits in the processing rate and change of processing rate
in control circuits.

Blake

"McClelland, Kent" <MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU> 8/26/2016 9:11 AM >>>

[From Kent McClelland (2016.26.1100)]

Hi Alex,

Well, I have an idea, although I won’t be offended if you tell me
it’s hopelessly naive. And, I’m sorry to say, it does involve a
spreadsheet simulation (mine, not Rick’s).

I stayed out of the substantive part of this discussion from the
beginning, because the topic is pretty far from my own academic area
(sociology), and I’m no great shakes when it comes to manipulating
mathematical equations. But I do have a fair amount of experience
playing with simulation models of control-system behavior, and the
suggestion I have to offer is based on that experience.

If I understand the power-law articles that I’ve looked at, the
phenomenon to be explained is that when an organism is making a
controlled motion, the speed of movement decreases as the curves get
tighter or the angles to be negotiated get sharper, in a fashion
that’s described by the so-called power law. (From my PCT
background I’m a bit skeptical about “laws�? of behavior.) My
argument is that when control systems follow a path that involves
increasingly tighter curves or sharper angles, they have to
“naturally�? slow down to stay in control of their perceptions.
The particular model I’ve played around with involves angles, rather
than curves, for the sake of providing a clear demonstration of the
principle, but I’m guessing the same principle is at work for curves,
as well.

I’ve done a simulation of a control-system tracking movement in an
x-y plane in which the path to be followed consists of a series of line
segments of the same length set at increasingly sharp angles from each
other. I constructed the line segments by taking varying angles of the
radii of a circle, and as the segments are connected together each angle
in the path to be negotiated is 0.1 radians larger than the last. I used
this path as to create a set of references for my control systems to
follow (more or less like a tracking experiment). All the line segments
are exactly the same length, because they’re all created from radii of
the same circle. Here is a graph of this reference path:

[Alex_Gomez-Marin]

blake, kent, what you say sounds interesting yet i can’t open the figs on my phone to understand exactly what is being controlled and how.

laws in behavior simply mean patterns or order or certain invariances.

slowing down when taking curves may be physical – doing it in a power law way is less trivial to explain.

···

On Friday, 26 August 2016, Blake Ashley Blake.Ashley@tucsonaz.gov wrote:

[from Blake Ashley (2016.26.953)]

At the risk of displaying my ignorance, I’ll weigh in.

I presume that control circuits have variable processing speed, that

the speed changes as needed to control perception against a disturbance,

that there is an upper limit to the processing speed due to the

structure of the nervous system, and that the processing speed will

generally be as low as possible to control perception because to process

faster than needed would waste resources and the body generally doesn’t

do that . So in the case of a straight line, the processing speed

needed in the control circuit to keep the perception of “finger on line”

in coincidence with the reference perception is relatively slow. When

the line begins to curve, the control circuit must operate at a higher

rate to control the perception of finger-on-curve. There are clearly

limits within the control circuit as to how fast it can process and also

perhaps limits within the control circuit as to how fast it can change

the processing rate. The power law may be a manifestation of

neurological limits in the processing rate and change of processing rate

in control circuits.

Blake

“McClelland, Kent” MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU 8/26/2016 9:11 AM >>>

[From Kent McClelland (2016.26.1100)]

Hi Alex,

Well, I have an idea, although I won’t be offended if you tell me

it’s hopelessly naive. And, I’m sorry to say, it does involve a

spreadsheet simulation (mine, not Rick’s).

I stayed out of the substantive part of this discussion from the

beginning, because the topic is pretty far from my own academic area

(sociology), and I’m no great shakes when it comes to manipulating

mathematical equations. But I do have a fair amount of experience

playing with simulation models of control-system behavior, and the

suggestion I have to offer is based on that experience.

If I understand the power-law articles that I’ve looked at, the

phenomenon to be explained is that when an organism is making a

controlled motion, the speed of movement decreases as the curves get

tighter or the angles to be negotiated get sharper, in a fashion

that’s described by the so-called power law. (From my PCT

background I’m a bit skeptical about “laws� of behavior.) My

argument is that when control systems follow a path that involves

increasingly tighter curves or sharper angles, they have to

“naturally� slow down to stay in control of their perceptions.

The particular model I’ve played around with involves angles, rather

than curves, for the sake of providing a clear demonstration of the

principle, but I’m guessing the same principle is at work for curves,

as well.

I’ve done a simulation of a control-system tracking movement in an

x-y plane in which the path to be followed consists of a series of line

segments of the same length set at increasingly sharp angles from each

other. I constructed the line segments by taking varying angles of the

radii of a circle, and as the segments are connected together each angle

in the path to be negotiated is 0.1 radians larger than the last. I used

this path as to create a set of references for my control systems to

follow (more or less like a tracking experiment). All the line segments

are exactly the same length, because they’re all created from radii of

the same circle. Here is a graph of this reference path:

[chadtgreen]

[From Chad Green (2016.08.26.1728)]

We appear to be stuck in a double bind, an everyday occurrence which according to Gregory Bateson represents the conflict between different logical types, i.e.,
the information communicated through semiotics (“you can criticize me�) and that which is communicated through actions or metacommunication (“your criticism is unwelcome�).

According to Deleuze and Guattari (1983) double binds are undecidable “until we do away with both the problem and the solution� altogether and instead aim for
constant evolution (becomings or plateaus of intensity). Otherwise schisms such as what we now have are inevitable (i.e., schismogenesis). Food for thought.

Best,

Chad

Chad T. Green, PMP
Research Office
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1575

“We are not what we know but what we are willing to learn.� - Mary Catherine Bateson

···

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.25.1510)]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

AGM: what an elegant way, dear rick, to retire for a while from the spread-shit power-law discussion, than suggesting that nobody but you in the csgNet can have ideas. bravo!

RM:I didn’t mean to imply that nobody but me on CSGNet can have ideas. I just predicted that, since I have now left the power law discussion, there wouldn’t be any ideas forthcoming in answer to your question about why
or how the control of perception may give rise to the power law. I did say that to be provocative because I would like to hear how others would answer your question (note that I said that I hoped my prediction would be wrong) but also because I would like
to hear something other than that my ideas are all wrong. I would like to know what ideas people think are right: why or how might the control of perception (PCT) give rise to the power law? Inquiring minds want to know;-)

Best regards

Rick

On Thursday, 25 August 2016, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.25.1015)]

Rick Marken (2016.08.24.0850)

RM: What I think would be most productive now would be for me to drop out of this discussion of the power law. This should certainly resolve the conflict over the power law.

RM: What I suggest is that we hit the reset button and start all over from your initial question, but without me in the mix. Your initial question, Alex, was excellent:

AGM: Any ideas why or how “the control of perception” may give rise to this power law constraining geometry and kinematics in humans, and now in fruit fly larvae?

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/07/05/062166

RM: Now that I am no longer in this discussion, I predict that there will be no ideas forthcoming in answer to Alex’s question. Silence will prevail, showing that it was all about trying to show that my idea is wrong rather than showing
that their idea is right; because I believe they have no idea.

RM: I hope my prediction is as wrong as they think my analysis is.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

–

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.26.1645)]

OK, I know I promised not to get involved but I just have a couple questions about some things I’ve read. I think this is ok because they are not comments on criticisms of anything anyone else has said.Â

1. Why is it said that the the power law shows that movement slows down through curves? A power relationship between curvature and velocity looks like this:Â

So the 1/3 (or 2/3) power law seems to show that the greater the curvature, the faster the movement velocity. The fractional power just says that the rate of increase in velocity with curvature decreases as curvature increases. What am I missing?Â

2. In what sense is the power law a law?

3. In what sense is the power law a constraint on movement?

Answers to these questions would help me better evaluate my crackpot ideas.Â

Thanks

BestÂ

Rick

···

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Chad T. Green Chad.Green@lcps.org wrote:

[From Chad Green (2016.08.26.1728)]

Â

We appear to be stuck in a double bind, an everyday occurrence which according to Gregory Bateson represents the conflict between different logical types, i.e.,
the information communicated through semiotics (“you can criticize meâ€?) and that which is communicated through actions or metacommunication (“your criticism is unwelcomeâ€?).Â

Â

According to Deleuze and Guattari (1983) double binds are undecidable “until we do away with both the problem and the solution� altogether and instead aim for
constant evolution (becomings or plateaus of intensity). Otherwise schisms such as what we now have are inevitable (i.e., schismogenesis). Food for thought.

Â

Best,

Chad

Â

Chad T. Green, PMP

Research Office

Loudoun County Public Schools

21000 Education Court

Ashburn, VA 20148

Voice: 571-252-1486

Fax: 571-252-1575

Â

“We are not what we know but what we are willing to learn.� - Mary Catherine Bateson

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:13 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Got Ideas?

Â

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.25.1510)]

Â

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

AGM: what an elegant way, dear rick, to retire for a while from the spread-shit power-law discussion, than suggesting that nobody but you in the csgNet can have ideas. bravo!

Â

RM:I didn’t mean to imply that nobody but me on CSGNet can have ideas. I just predicted that, since I have now left the power law discussion, there wouldn’t be any ideas forthcoming in answer to your question about why
or how the control of perception may give rise to the power law. I did say that to be provocative because I would like to hear how others would answer your question (note that I said that I hoped my prediction would be wrong) but also because I would like
to hear something other than that my ideas are all wrong. I would like to know what ideas people think are right:Â why or how might the control of perception (PCT) give rise to the power law? Inquiring minds want to know;-)

Â

Best regards

Â

Rick

On Thursday, 25 August 2016, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.08.25.1015)]

Â

Rick Marken (2016.08.24.0850)

Â

RM: What I think would be most productive now would be for me to drop out of this discussion of the power law. This should certainly resolve the conflict over the power law.Â

Â

RM: What I suggest is that we hit the reset button and start all over from your initial question, but without me in the mix. Your initial question, Alex, was excellent:

Â

AGM: Any ideas why or how “the control of perception” may give rise to this power law constraining geometry and kinematics in humans, and now in fruit fly larvae?

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/07/05/062166

Â

RM: Now that I am no longer in this discussion, I predict that there will be no ideas forthcoming in answer to Alex’s question. Silence will prevail, showing that it was all about trying to show that my idea is wrong rather than showing
that their idea is right; because I believe they have no idea.Â

Â

RM: I hope my prediction is as wrong as they think my analysis is.

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

Â

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2016.08.27.00.28]

[From Kent McClelland (2016.26.1100)]

Hi Alex,

    Well, I have an idea, although I won’t be offended

if you tell me it’s hopelessly naive. And, I’m sorry to say, it
does involve a spreadsheet simulation (mine, not Rick’s).

…
I have no idea whether this control-system output
conforms to the power law, but i would argue that it shows how
the velocity of controlled movement must to slow down through
sharp turns (and presumably tight curves, as well), in order for
the control systems to maintain control of their perceptions.Â

    My spreadsheet is attached, so anyone who wants to

can check my calculations, (and tell me where Iâ€ââ„¢m going
wrong!).Â

I didn't do more than a cursory scan of your calculations, but

assuming they are correct, I thought it would be interesting to make
a scattergram of log radius of curvature vs. log velocity. I attach
the extended spreadsheet, which is yours with a few columns added. I
hope my calculations are correct.

 I don't really think you can say that the scatterplot follows a

power law, but you could imagine the steeply sloping mid-section as
showing velocity to be proportional to R^0.2 , if you have
a generous nature. The maximum velocity tails off on the flatter
sections (high radius). That might be an artifact of the sampling, I
suppose. If it is an artifact of the method, and the 0.2 power law
is correctly calculated and really applies to higher velocities as
well, that could be a clue toward answering the original question.

![belgmogfofhnoaag.jpg|353x325](upload://A6uaMx6iPS1ztnZZoRmZksbNkbD.jpeg)

I think this is a valuable exercise. I've been going at the problem

from the other end, by geometric analysis, but it’s not easy, and
I’ve been tempted to try spreadsheet modelling, even though I’m not
terribly comfortable with it.

Martin

McClellandXY POWER-LAW SIMULATIONS.xlsx (109 KB)