Power Law Paper (was Re: PCT Research)

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2017.07.16.17.03]

Probably so, but possibly not. There's always hope.

Martin

···

On 2017/07/16 4:03 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin
wrote:

      This

is all a waste of time.

      On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Martin

Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2017.07.16,14.40]

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.16.1140)]

                        Martin Taylor

(2017.07.15.23.08)–
MT: As Rick
requested, I have finally composed a message
to the editor…
MT: So, Rick,
if you will send the name and address of the
editor with whom you corresponded, I will
follow your wish and inform the editor of
the issue, as you asked me to do.

                        Bruce Nevin (2017.07.16.08:26

ET)–

                          BN: Just to point out that a public

controversy on technical matters in PCT is
actually good PR for PCT, whatever its
resolution.Â

                      RM: I strongly agree with you, Bruce. Which

is why I will not send Martin the email
address of the action editor on our paper. I
think it would be better to argue this
controversy in public, for the reasons you
give. And the way to do this is for Martin
(and anyone else who wants to join in) to
submit his “message” to the journal that
published our paper --Â * Experimental Brain
Research* – as a rebuttal to that paper.

           There's no need for a rebuttal to correct a simple

mathematical mistake. Anyway, Alex is going to submit one,
if he hasn’t already done so.

                      A peer reviewed journal seems like the best

public forum in which to conduct this
controversy. The action editor on our paper is
likely to be the action editor on the rebuttal
and, hopefully, will see fit to publish it in * Experimental
Brain Research* Â along with our rebuttal
to that rebuttal. I think that’s how it
usually goes when journals publish rebuttals
to published articles.

                      RM: So, again, I really like the idea of

keeping the controversy about the power law
public rather than private, which it would be
if Martin just sent a private letter to the
editor.

           Well, before I actually wrote it, you wanted me to

send my message to the editor so that the issue could be
examined by an independent reviewer versed in analytic
geometry, and now you don’t. Make up your mind. You have
said that you have NEVER asked anyone to check on the
point at issue, and have also refused to ask the journal
editor to get someone to check. Instead you asked me (or,
you said, Alex) to do it. Now I have, and you say you
don’t want me to.

          I'm thinking you really, really, don't want someone

competent to look at the specific mathematical question at
issue, and prefer instead a private CSGnet discussion in
which your simple assertion “I am correct” suffices as a
mathematical argument.

          I have no objection to a real discussion being public in

any sense of the word, even in the sense of being
available only to the small number of CSGnet readers, but
since those same long-suffering readers have been exposed
to the (non-)debate for many months, it seems totally
redundant to expose them to it again, rather than using
CSGnet to deal with other aspects of PCT research that
might interest more readers and induce contributions of
new ideas.

          If you prefer, though, I will copy my message to the three

editors of the “Behavioral Sciences and Neuropsychology”
section of the journal – I presume one of them should be
the action editor. – to CSGnet rather than to you
privately, as I had intended.

          There's actually only one point in my message to the

editor(s), but I will ask you here and now, in order to
make the discussion about it “public” in your restrictive
sense: why did you use Gribble and Ostry’s mis-copied
version of the expressions for Velocity and Radius of
Curvature, rather than the correct Viviani and Stucchi
expressions that Gribble and Ostry cite as their
authority?

              Martin

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S.
MarkenÂ

                                              "Perfection

is achieved not when
you have nothing more
to add, but when you
have
nothing left to take
away.�
Â
          Â
    --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2017.07.16.23.02]

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.16.1440)]

So why did you refuse to ask the people you initially had look at it

before submission? You said they were competent, but you have
point-blank refused to point out the place in the paper where the
issue exists. I don’t quite believe your protestation.

Obviously not, since I have been asking time and again for you to

get the dispute adjudicated. I believe I am right. You believe you
are right. All that needs adjudication is whether the substitution
of sqrt((dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)² ) of equation 2
(differentiation with respect to time) to replace sqrt((ds/dt)²+(dy/dt)² )
(differentiation with respect to distance along the curve) in
equation 3 to create equation 4 is permissible. I know you think it
is proper, because you have been saying so for months, when you
haven’t been saying that the expression for radius of curvature is
actually a function of time, not space.

I don't think it's a matter for rebuttal or public discussion, so I

have no intention of writing anything for potential publication. I
will send to the three editors I mentioned, with a copy to you and
separately to CSGnet since you want to restart the polemics there –
something of which I disapprove. The CSGnet copy will not have an ID
stamp header. And I won’t wait till the end of the year, which would
just allow the article to infect more people’s view of PCT. However,
I will circulate my message privately to one or two others, to see
if they have corrections or comments, before I send to the editors.

But really, all you have to do is answer my question. Why did you

use Gribble and Ostry’s version of the key equations, which they
said they got from Viviani and Stucchi, rather than getting them
from the original? Anyone looking at the two could see that G&O
made a disastrous transcription error. If you had used V&S
instead, this whole sorry episode could have been avoided, because
you would never have written your initial “Behavioral Illusion”
message to CSGnet.

It's still not too late for you to look at V&S, which you can

download by searching Google Scholar. You don’t have to take my word
for anything. It’s all there (or in the Wikipedia article on
curvature).

Martin

···

Martin Taylor (2017.07.16,14.40)–

            MT: I'm thinking you

really, really, don’t want someone competent to look at
the specific mathematical question at issue, and prefer
instead a private CSGnet discussion in which your simple
assertion “I am correct” suffices as a mathematical
argument.

          RM: Not at all. I want someone competent not only to

look at the mathematical question at issue

…

          but to make their evaluation public by publishing it

as a rebuttal in EBR. You seem to think that you are that
competent someone

          so I would hope that you would publish  your

evaluation as a rebuttal to our paper.

            MT: If you prefer, though, I will copy my message to the

three editors of the “Behavioral Sciences and
Neuropsychology” section of the journal – I presume one
of them should be the action editor. – to CSGnet rather
than to you privately, as I had intended.

          RM: I would prefer that you submit your message as a

rebuttal article through the regular EBR portal and see if
they publish it. If you are not willing to do that then,
as I said, I would prefer that we wait until the end of
the year and see if anyone does submit a rebuttal to EAB.
If you just can’t wait until then, of course, you are
free to copy your message to the three editors of EBR
whenever you like. I am just not sending the editor’s
address to you now because I would like to have your
message published as a public rebuttal rather than a
private message.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.16.1140)]

···

Martin Taylor (2017.07.15.23.08)–
MT: As Rick requested, I have finally composed a message to the editor…
MT: So, Rick, if you will send the name and address of the editor with whom you corresponded, I will follow your wish and inform the editor of the issue, as you asked me to do.
Bruce Nevin (2017.07.16.08:26 ET)–

BN: Just to point out that a public controversy on technical matters in PCT is actually good PR for PCT, whatever its resolution.Â

RM: I strongly agree with you, Bruce. Which is why I will not send Martin the email address of the action editor on our paper. I think it would be better to argue this controversy in public, for the reasons you give. And the way to do this is for Martin (and anyone else who wants to join in) to submit his “message” to the journal that published our paper --Â Experimental Brain Research – as a rebuttal to that paper.Â

A peer reviewed journal seems like the best public forum in which to conduct this controversy. The action editor on our paper is likely to be the action editor on the rebuttal and, hopefully, will see fit to publish it in Experimental Brain Research along with our rebuttal to that rebuttal. I think that’s how it usually goes when journals publish rebuttals to published articles.

RM: So, again, I really like the idea of keeping the controversy about the power law public rather than private, which it would be if Martin just sent a private letter to the editor.Â

BestÂ

Rick

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.16.1440)]

···

Martin Taylor (2017.07.16,14.40)–

MT: There's no need for a rebuttal to correct a simple mathematical

mistake. Anyway, Alex is going to submit one, if he hasn’t already
done so.

RM: If its a simple mathematical mistake that is of no consequence in terms of the analysis and conclusions in the paper then there is no need to write to the editor either (well, maybe the copy editor). But if the purported mathematical mistake invalidates the analysis and conclusions of the paper, as I believe you think it does, then it certainly merits a public rebuttal. And so far as I know Alex has not submitted a rebuttal yet and, based on his latest post where he says this is all a waste of time, it seems like he may not be submitting one after all. So if there is to be any public rebuttal at all it looks like it might have to come from you.

MT: Well, before I actually wrote it, you wanted me to send my message

to the editor so that the issue could be examined by an independent
reviewer versed in analytic geometry, and now you don’t.

RM: Â You had suggested that I send such a message to the editor myself. I thought that was inappropriate and suggested that you do it. But Bruce’s post made me realize that, for the benefit of PCT, it would be better to have such a message sent publicly, as a rebuttal published in EBR, since, as Bruce noted, any kind of publicity is good publicity.Â

MT: Make up

your mind. You have said that you have NEVER asked anyone to check
on the point at issue, and have also refused to ask the journal
editor to get someone to check. Instead you asked me (or, you said,
Alex) to do it. Now I have, and you say you don’t want me to.

RM: No, I now say that I would rather have you do it publicly. But if no one is going to  submit a rebuttal to EBR then it’s fine with me if you  send your message to the editor. I suggest we wait until the end of the year and if no rebuttal shows up by then I’l send you the editor’s email address and you can send your message to him.

RM: I really think it would be too bad if no one writes a rebuttal to our paper; I think that making this controversy public could get PCT some very high profile publicity.Â

Â

MT: I'm thinking you really, really, don't want someone competent to

look at the specific mathematical question at issue, and prefer
instead a private CSGnet discussion in which your simple assertion
“I am correct” suffices as a mathematical argument.

RM: Not at all. I want someone competent not only to look at the mathematical question at issue but to make their evaluation public by publishing it as a rebuttal in EBR. You seem to think that you are that competent someone so I would hope that you would publish  your evaluation as a rebuttal to our paper.

MT: If you prefer, though, I will copy my message to the three editors

of the “Behavioral Sciences and Neuropsychology” section of the
journal – I presume one of them should be the action editor. – to
CSGnet rather than to you privately, as I had intended.

RM: I would prefer that you submit your message as a rebuttal article through the regular EBR portal and see if they publish it. If you are not willing to do that then, as I said, I would prefer that we wait until the end of the year and see if anyone does submit a rebuttal to EAB. If you just can’t wait until then, of course, you are  free to copy your message to the three editors of EBR whenever you like. I am just not sending the editor’s address to you now because I would like to have your message published as a public rebuttal rather than a private message.Â

MT: There's actually only one point in my message to the editor(s), but

I will ask you here and now, in order to make the discussion about
it “public” in your restrictive sense: why did you use Gribble and
Ostry’s mis-copied version of the expressions for Velocity and
Radius of Curvature, rather than the correct Viviani and Stucchi
expressions that Gribble and Ostry cite as their authority?

RM: Why don’t we leave this to your hopefully published rebuttal or, if you just can’t wait, to your private message to the editors.

BestÂ

Rick

Martin

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

          RM: I strongly agree with you, Bruce. Which is why I

will not send Martin the email address of the action
editor on our paper. I think it would be better to argue
this controversy in public, for the reasons you give. And
the way to do this is for Martin (and anyone else who
wants to join in) to submit his “message” to the journal
that published our paper --Â Experimental Brain Research
– as a rebuttal to that paper.Â

          RM: So, again, I really like the idea of keeping the

controversy about the power law public rather than
private, which it would be if Martin just sent a private
letter to the editor.Â

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

                                  "Perfection

is achieved not when you have
nothing more to add, but when you
have
nothing left to take away.�
  Â
            Â
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.17.1045)]

···

Martin Taylor (2017.07.16.23.02)_Â

MT: I don't think it's a matter for rebuttal or public discussion, so I

have no intention of writing anything for potential publication. I
will send to the three editors I mentioned, with a copy to you and
separately to CSGnet since you want to restart the polemics there –
something of which I disapprove.

RM: I have absolutely no interest in restarting the power law polemics on CSGNet. Indeed, that’s why I wrote the paper; I had clearly lost the argument here. I wanted to get an outside opinion.Â

MT: The CSGnet copy will not have an ID

stamp header. And I won’t wait till the end of the year, which would
just allow the article to infect more people’s view of PCT.

RM: I don’t see how writing a private letter to some editors will staunch the infection that you believe to be pouring out of my paper. I think the only way to  staunch it is with a public rebuttal that describes the true view of PCT that my paper is contaminating.

Â

However,

I will circulate my message privately to one or two others, to see
if they have corrections or comments, before I send to the editors.

RM: OK. But I think you’re missing an opportunity to publicize PCT. As Bruce N. said, any publicity is good publicity. Imagine the attention we could get from a public fight between the true champion of PCT and the evil impostor.Â

MT: But really, all you have to do is answer my question. Why did you

use Gribble and Ostry’s version of the key equations, which they
said they got from Viviani and Stucchi, rather than getting them
from the original?

 RM: Because the G&O paper is peer reviewed, is one of the most cited papers in the power law literature and no one except you seemed to have any problem with their equations. Also, using those equations to calculate the variables involved in the power law, I got the same results for various movement trajectories as were reported by other power law researchers.Â

MT: Anyone looking at the two could see that G&O

made a disastrous transcription error. If you had used V&S
instead, this whole sorry episode could have been avoided, because
you would never have written your initial “Behavioral Illusion”
message to CSGnet.

RM: Here are the V&S equations. Looks to me like using their equations you get the same relationship between V and R as you get using the G&O equations.Â

Â

Â

 MT: It's still not too late for you to look at V&S, which you can

download by searching Google Scholar. You don’t have to take my word
for anything. It’s all there (or in the Wikipedia article on
curvature).Â

RM: I already posted some time ago the V&S equations, showing that they are equivalent to the G&O equations. The only difference is that V&S use the derivatives of x.phi and y.phi as the measures of the movement at each instant. These are, indeed, curvature measures but the difference between the derivatives of these variables is apparently equivalent to the derivatives of x and y. But whether that’s true of not, it’s still clear that solving for V(t) using equations A2 and A3 above results in a 1/3 power relationship between V(t) and R(t) as in equation 5 of Marken & Shaffer.Â

BestÂ

Rick Â

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.17.1135)]

···

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

AGM: Thanks Rick, for sending the notes from Bill’s 1995 email. I agree with him, not with you.Â

RM: I find that rather astonishing but apparently since Bill passed away what has also passed away is what I thought was my correct understanding of PCT. Â Â

Â

AGM: I wish he was alive so that I were able to have a proper discussion with him (I never could),

RM: I wish so too. Since Bill passed away I feel like I’ve woken up in bizarro PCT world. It’s similar to the PCT world I knew when Bill was here – same words, same people – but not quite the same PCT. Nearly everything I thought I knew about PCT is now wrong. I keep hoping this is a dream (a nightmare really) but it’s the same damn thing every morning.Â

Â

AGM: and also to read from his own words to ask you to stop out-putting nonsense — although from your insidee, that invariant thread of bullshit may be explicable… right? Delusions of grandeur, it is called.Â

RM: While Bill was alive he gave every indication to me that I understood PCT quite well; indeed, he sometimes hinted that I was his “heir apparent”, as in the attached inscription in my copy of “Making Sense of Behavior”. I had no interest in the heir apparent position but I never dreamed I would be so successful at not being it. Â

AGM: Sure, sure, sure, PCT is the ultimate paradigm shift that will make 99% of scientists (physicists, biologists, psychologists, etc) bow to the TRUTH and recognize that 99% of what they did was to be thrown to the bin, etc, etc.Â

RM: Yes, that’s what Bill thought. Not that PCT was the TRUTH but that it was the correct direction for the life sciences. But he also realized that there was (and would continue to be) strong resistance to PCT. Here’s something from a piece he had written just two months before he passed away:Â

BP: The massive opposition [to PCT] from some quarters and
the passive resistance from others came as a disappointing surprise, but
perhaps it shouldn’t have. Science has a social as well as an intellectual
aspect. Scientists are not stupid. They can look at an idea and quickly work out
where it fits in with existing knowledge and where it doesn’t. And scientists
are all too human: when they see that the new idea means their life’s work
could end up mostly in the trash-can, their second reaction is simply to think
“That idea is obviously wrong.” That relieves the sinking feeling in
the pit of the stomach that is the first reaction. Being wrong about something
is unpleasant enough; being wrong about something one has worked hard to learn
and has believed, taught, written about, and researched, is close to
intolerable. All scientists of any talent have had that experience. The best of
them have recognized that their own principles require them to put those
personal reactions aside or at least save them for later. They know that any
such upheaval is going to be important, and ignoring it is not an option. But
those who recognize and embrace a revolution in science are the exception. Most
scientists practice ‘normal science’ within a securely established – and
well-defended – paradigm.
Â
BP: That is what we are up against here, and have
been struggling with since before most of you readers were born. We have spent
that time learning more about this new idea and getting better at explaining
it, but no better at persuading others to change their minds in a serious way
when their career commitments are threatened by it. What we had thought would
be a nutritious and deliciously buttered carrot has proven to function like a
stick. The clearer we have made the idea, the more defenses it has aroused.

AGM: But, before that happens, perhaps you could learn some very basic maths and, most importantly, work on that dreadful prior that does not let you see things clearly at all. Note that your power law paper is very close to what could be marked as scientific misconduct.Â

RM: It sounds to me like you might be one of the scientists Bill is talking about in the paragraphs above; the one’s who practice ‘normal science’ within a securely established – and well-defended – paradigm.Â

Â

AGM: I am so so so sick of this PCT stuff; not because of PCT but because of CSG net… Â aghh…

RM: I feel your pain. I’m pretty sick of being the only one on CSGNet who doesn’t understand PCT. I think you might actually enjoy CSGNet if you just ignored my posts. Actually, that might be good advice for everyone on CSGNet. I’ll continue to post since I still labor under the illusion that I have a very good grasp of PCT; and I do like to see what other people have to say about PCT from their perspective. But if my posts (like my paper) are infecting people’s view of PCT then it’s probably best to avoid them.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.17.1445)]

JC: "Mas yo también te digo, que tú eres Pedro, y sobre esta piedra edificaré mi iglesia; y las puertas del infierno no prevalecerán contra ella."

Â
RM: I'm sure that's what Bill meant to say;-)
BestÂ
Rick
 >

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.17.1135)]

AGM: Thanks Rick, for sending the notes from Bill's 1995 email. I agree with him, not with you.Â

RM: I find that rather astonishing but apparently since Bill passed away what has also passed away is what I thought was my correct understanding of PCT. Â Â

Â

AGM: I wish he was alive so that I were able to have a proper discussion with him (I never could),

RM: I wish so too. Since Bill passed away I feel like I've woken up in bizarro PCT world. It's similar to the PCT world I knew when Bill was here -- same words, same people -- but not quite the same PCT. Nearly everything I thought I knew about PCT is now wrong. I keep hoping this is a dream (a nightmare really) but it's the same damn thing every morning.Â

Â

AGM: and also to read from his own words to ask you to stop out-putting nonsense — although from your inside, that invariant thread of bullshit may be explicable... right? Delusions of grandeur, it is called.Â

RM: While Bill was alive he gave every indication to me that I understood PCT quite well; indeed, he sometimes hinted that I was his "heir apparent", as in the attached inscription in my copy of "Making Sense of Behavior". I had no interest in the heir apparent position but I never dreamed I would be so successful at not being it. Â

AGM: Sure, sure, sure, PCT is the ultimate paradigm shift that will make 99% of scientists (physicists, biologists, psychologists, etc) bow to the TRUTH and recognize that 99% of what they did was to be thrown to the bin, etc, etc.Â

RM: Yes, that's what Bill thought. Not that PCT was the TRUTH but that it was the correct direction for the life sciences. But he also realized that there was (and would continue to be) strong resistance to PCT. Here's something from a piece he had written just two months before he passed away:Â >>>

BP: The massive opposition [to PCT] from some quarters and the passive resistance from others came as a disappointing surprise, but perhaps it shouldn’t have. Science has a social as well as an intellectual aspect. Scientists are not stupid. They can look at an idea and quickly work out where it fits in with existing knowledge and where it doesn't. And scientists are all too human: when they see that the new idea means their life's work could end up mostly in the trash-can, their second reaction is simply to think "That idea is obviously wrong." That relieves the sinking feeling in the pit of the stomach that is the first reaction. Being wrong about something is unpleasant enough; being wrong about something one has worked hard to learn and has believed, taught, written about, and researched, is close to intolerable. All scientists of any talent have had that experience. The best of them have recognized that their own principles require them to put those personal reactions aside or at least save them for later. They know that any such upheaval is going to be important, and ignoring it is not an option. But those who recognize and embrace a revolution in science are the exception. Most scientists practice ‘normal science’ within a securely established -- and well-defended -- paradigm.
Â
BP: That is what we are up against here, and have been struggling with since before most of you readers were born. We have spent that time learning more about this new idea and getting better at explaining it, but no better at persuading others to change their minds in a serious way when their career commitments are threatened by it. What we had thought would be a nutritious and deliciously buttered carrot has proven to function like a stick. The clearer we have made the idea, the more defenses it has aroused.
AGM: But, before that happens, perhaps you could learn some very basic maths and, most importantly, work on that dreadful prior that does not let you see things clearly at all. Note that your power law paper is very close to what could be marked as scientific misconduct.Â

RM: It sounds to me like you might be one of the scientists Bill is talking about in the paragraphs above; the one's who practice ‘normal science’ within a securely established -- and well-defended -- paradigm.Â

Â

AGM: I am so so so sick of this PCT stuff; not because of PCT but because of CSG net.... Â aghh....

RM: I feel your pain. I'm pretty sick of being the only one on CSGNet who doesn't understand PCT. I think you might actually enjoy CSGNet if you just ignored my posts. Actually, that might be good advice for everyone on CSGNet. I'll continue to post since I still labor under the illusion that I have a very good grasp of PCT; and I do like to see what other people have to say about PCT from their perspective. But if my posts (like my paper) are infecting people's view of PCT then it's probably best to avoid them.Â
BestÂ
Rick

Â

···

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin <<mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com>agomezmarin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Richard Marken <<mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com>rsmarken@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin <<mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com>agomezmarin@gmail.com> wrote:

--

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

--
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.18.1100)]

···

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.netÂ

MT: So, Rick, if you will send the name and address of the editor with whom you corresponded, I will follow your wish and inform the editor of the issue, as you asked me to do.

Â

HB : For me to Martin. There is not only one problem in Ricks’ article that goes »ad absurdum« but whole articel is »shot into the fog«. So I’d like to add some notes too.

RM: Oh, yes, Martin. Please include the “notes” from Boris. You might want to get Bruce Abbott in on it too.Â

BestÂ

Rick

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.18.1415)]

···

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB : For me to Martin. There is not only one problem in Ricks’ article that goes »ad absurdum« but whole articel is »shot into the fog«. So I’d like to add some notes too.

RM: Oh, yes, Martin. Please include the “notes” from Boris. You might want to get Bruce Abbott in on it too.Â

Â

HB : Sure why not. And I think that Rupert should do the same.

RM: The more the merrier!

Â

HB: My notes will not be about »Power Law« itself but directly on your nosense understanding of nervous system. What can be connected to »Power Law«. You deserve critics Rick. You went on fields which you don’t understand. Not mentioning your weak understanding of PCT and not agreeing with Bills’ and Marys’ Thesis about PCT.

RM: Go for it. I look forward to seeing it.Â

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.18.1440)]

···

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Â

RM: Go for it. I look forward to seeing it.Â

Â

HB : What a nice surprise. So you are not afraid. Good. You can send us or you can  announce informations we need for answer your article. Where is the problem ?

RM: No, not afraid at all. Well, check that. I am afraid that you guys will not follow through with a publishable rebuttal.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.18.1715)]

···

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

 Â

RM: No, not afraid at all. Well, check that. I am afraid that you guys will not follow through with a publishable rebuttal.

Â

HB : That’s our problem.

RM: Yes indeed.Â

Â

BH: You just send information we need and if you are afraid that will not manage to answer your article, you can help us.

RM: I’m afraid that’s not the way it works. I will send you the data on which our analysis is based and the analysis itself as well if you request it. But it’s your job to answer (rebut) the article in term of showing what mistakes we made and how those mistakes affect out conclusion (that the power law is a side effect of control). My co-author and I (as well as the reviewers) liked the article and, after peer review, it was found to be suitable for publication because the authors and reviewers agreed that it was in good shape; there was nothing to “answer”. So your job is to show that the authors and reviewers were wrong; that there were mistakes that were not caught; mistakes that invalidate the analysis and conclusions of the paper.

Â

BH: You wrote that you are looking forward to see it. So I assume you are happy, because PCT will be presented in the right »light«.

RM: No, I’m happy about a rebuttal being written because, as I said, controversy is good publicity. I am very confident that our paper presents PCT in the right light. You guys are the one’s who think it’s wrong so it behooves you to demonstrate that it is. I am quite confident that you will not be able to do this. But I am happy thinking that you will actually try because, if you do manage to get a rebuttal published, it will be great publicity for PCT.

Â

BH: I hope you still wish the best possible devrelopment to PCT. This is the way to repair damage you made.

RM: I certainly want the best possible development of PCT and I think our power law paper is one the the best “developments” of PCT that I have ever published. I look forward to seeing a rebuttal because I want to know why you think the paper is so awful. I think the journal will not publish a rebuttal that says little more than that our paper is awful. You will have to actually show, using models and data, what is wrong with it. And if you do manage to produce such a rebuttal and it is convincing then I will have learned something; and if it’s not convincing we get to rebut the rebuttal. So it’s a win-win for PCT. If your rebuttal is correct, we get a the correct view of PCT (yours) out in public; if it’s not, we get the correct view of PCT (mine) out in public. What could be better?Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Best

Â

Rick

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.20.0925)]

···

boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.18.1715)]

Â

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Â

HB : So I can conclude that you’ll not help us in any way. I knew you are afraid.

RM: My help would be aimed at showing how clearly we demonstrated that the power law is a side effect of control, why the power law is so consistently found and why the coefficient of that law typically deviates by varying amounts from the expected value of 1/3 or 2/3. So I don’t think you (or Martin or Alex or anyone else who might be involved in the rebuttal) would consider my help to be very helpful.Â

RM : But it’s your job to answer (rebut) the article in term of showing what mistakes we made and how those mistakes affect out conclusion (that the power law is a side effect of control).

Â

HB : I already partly answered your article and you didn’t answer. So you aproximatelly know what to expect.

RM: I don’t recall seeing your answer to our article. But I have seen other answers to it here on CSGNet and those I have seen give me reason to enthusiastically (and fearlessly) look forward to a public rebuttal to our paper.

RM : You guys are the one’s who think it’s wrong so it behooves you to demonstrate that it is…

Â

RM : I am quite confident that you will not be able to do this.

Â

HB : Ha, ha…. I knew it must be some reason for your answers. You count on the possibility that answers will never be published.

RM: Right. I am counting on the fact that a rebutal to our article will never be published. Please, oh, please don’t throw us in that Briar Patch!

Â

 RM : But I am happy thinking that you will actually try because, if you do manage to get a rebuttal published, it will be great publicity for PCT.

Â

HB : You mean negaitve publicity, because conflict is inevitable between PCT and RCT.

RM: I don’t think the publicity is negative if it positively attracts people’s attention to PCT. I think the main problem for PCT since Bill developed it has been that it has been ignored rather than reviewed negatively.Â

RM : ….I look forward to seeing a rebuttal because I want to know why yoou think the paper is so awful.

Â

HB . I already answered to this question on CSGnet. You know exactly what is wrong.

RM: No, I don’t. But that’s why a public rebuttal is so important. The value of such a rebuttal (assuming the analysis in the paper actually is wrong) is not to convince us that we’re wrong  (though you might be able to do that) but to show the audience of the paper what is wrong with it.

RM : So it’s a win-win for PCT.

Â

HB : Well whether it’s a »win-win«« for PCT time will show.

RM: Only if a rebuttal is actually published.

Â

HB : Public has nothing to do with correctness of PCT. Your view is not PCT view. I proved it to many times in our discussions.

RM: You have, indeed, proved something to me many times. But I’m afraid it is not that my view is “not the PCT view”.Â

HB: But I still don’t understand why you shouldn’t give us needed information about publisher and reviewers ???Â

RM: To paraphrase Juliet “What information canst thou have tonight?” All you have to know is that the article was published in the journal Experimental Brain Research. The article to be rebutted is Marken, R. and Shaffer, D. (2017)
The Power Law of Movement: An Example of a Behavioral Illusion, Experimental Brain Research, 235,
1835–1842. The website for the journal is  /www.springer.com/biomed/neuroscience/journal/221. There is information at that website for submission of papers, which would include rebuttals. Submission related inquiries can be sent to:   Saranya Gopulu (Saranya.Gopulu@springer.com). Â

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[_Boris_Hartman]

Rick,

I have quite enough of your manipulative games about what you understand and what you don’t understand about PCT. I know you read everything what I wrote. So will you stop playing a »PCT clown« ?

RM: You have, indeed, proved something to me many times. But I’m afraid it is not that my view is “not the PCT view”.

HB : Rick your view in accordance to PCT is not just wrong. It’s uterly wrong.

O.K. Rick. Just because you admitted that you can outdo yourself in stupidity, ….
/o:p>

RM earlier : In my rush to show that this is not the case I came up with what has to be the dumbest rebuttal of all time – outdoing even myself in stupidity;-)

HB : …I’ll repeat all your nonsenses (stupidity) about PCCT for who knows which time….

1.  Do you agree or not with Mary and Bill Powers Thesis ?
   

2.  Why your RCT (Ricks' Control Theory) deviate so much from PCT (Perceptual Control Theory)
   

RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory) :

1.   CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
   

2. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state

3.  FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
   

4.  INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
   

5.  COMPARATOR : ????
   

PCT (Perceptual Control Theory) :

Bill P (B:CP):

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

Bill P (B:CP):

OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

:…the output funcction shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

3.  Your statement that »people control people all the time« has never been proved ?
   

4.  Your statement that everything in control loop happens at the same time was not yet supported with evidences?
   

5.  Your statement that PCT involve »extrasensory perception« was not yet supported with evidences ?
   

6.  Can you show us (data and models) how can you generally be protected from disturbances ? Describe to us how can you generally be protected against bullits with »data and models« ?
   

7.  How will you prove that people can perceive and act in 3-dimenssions with separated »control units« ? When will we get the answer how people perceive z-dimension with »Third Eye« or that all x,y,z dimenssions are controlled by separate »control units« ? We need also answer how people control with independent control units ?
   

8.  You control wrong perceptions when you are driving… I wonder how you survive ???
   

9.  And I see that new masterpieces are on their way. »Exoself perception«, »side effecfs of behavior«,
   

Who wouldn’t be confused by such a nonsenses…. You simply don’t understand PCT any more… I begin to to wonder whether you did ever understand it ?

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 6:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Power Law Paper (was Re: PCT Research)

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.20.0925)]

boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.07.18.1715)]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB : So I can conclude that you’ll not help us in any way. I knew you are afraid.

RM: My help would be aimed at showing how clearly we demonstrated that the power law is a side effect of control, why the power law is so consistently found and why the coefficient of that law typically deviates by varying amounts from the expected value of 1/3 or 2/3. So I don’t think you (or Martin or Alex or anyone else who might be involved in the rebuttal) would consider my help to be very helpful.

RM : But it’s your job to answer (rebut) the article in term of showing what mistakes we made and how those mistakes affect out conclusion (that the power law is a side effect of control).

HB : I already partly answered your article and you didn’t answer. So you aproximatelly know what to expect.

RM: I don’t recall seeing your answer to our article. But I have seen other answers to it here on CSGNet and those I have seen give me reason to enthusiastically (and fearlessly) look forward to a public rebuttal to our paper.

RM : You guys are the one’s who think it’s wrong so it behooves you to demonstrate that it is…

RM : I am quite confident that you will not be able to do this.

HB : Ha, ha…. I knew it must be some reason for your aanswers. You count on the possibility that answers will never be published.

RM: Right. I am counting on the fact that a rebutal to our article will never be published. Please, oh, please don’t throw us in that Briar Patch!

RM : But I am happy thinking that you will actually try because, if you do manage to get a rebuttal published, it will be great publicity for PCT.

HB : You mean negaitve publicity, because conflict is inevitable between PCT and RCT.

RM: I don’t think the publicity is negative if it positively attracts people’s attention to PCT. I think the main problem for PCT since Bill developed it has been that it has been ignored rather than reviewed negatively.

RM : ….I look forward to seeing a rebuttal because I want to know why you think the paper is so awful.

HB . I already answered to this question on CSGnet. You know exactly what is wrong.

RM: No, I don’t. But that’s why a public rebuttal is so important. The value of such a rebuttal (assuming the analysis in the paper actually is wrong) is not to convince us that we’re wrong (though you might be able to do that) but to show the audience of the paper what is wrong with it.

RM : So it’s a win-win for PCT.

HB : Well whether it’s a »win-win«« for PCT time will show.

RM: Only if a rebuttal is actually published.

HB : Public has nothing to do with correctness of PCT. Your view is not PCT view. I proved it to many times in our discussions.

RM: You have, indeed, proved something to me many times. But I’m afraid it is not that my view is “not the PCT view”.

HB: But I still don’t understand why you shouldn’t give us needed information about publisher and reviewers ???

RM: To paraphrase Juliet “What information canst thou have tonight?” All you have to know is that the article was published in the journal Experimental Brain Research. The article to be rebutted is Marken, R. and Shaffer, D. (2017) The Power Law of Movement: An Example of a Behavioral Illusion, Experimental Brain Research, 235, 1835–1842. The website for the journal is /www.springer.com/biomed/neuroscience/journal/221. There is information at that website for submission of papers, which would include rebuttals. Submission related inquiries can be sent to: Saranya Gopulu (Saranya.Gopulu@springer.com).

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery