Parallel Processing – How to Verify It
![Image](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguc6I3tGofvJPKXgYnE92PEl87VeqovYjcQwCh2QPDmNPzU9N6UhGOW_QEdS8WDJN3cEFfUKBe4gYxmxhfUOtNSqkhD4soKh7uaUBWWlUCu814qqesD8rG-_oPIY-JIP4hgF1CnO8G_CtC/s1600/mechanistic-300x47.jpg)
In my previous post I contrasted the qualitative difference between animal space use under parallel processing (PP) and the standard, mechanistic approach. In this post I take the illustration one step further by illustrating how PP – in contrast to the mechanistic approach – allows for the simultaneous execution of responses and goals at different time scales. This architecture is substantially different from the traditional mechanistic models, which are locked into a serial processing kind of dynamics. This crucial difference in modelling dynamics allows for a simple statistical test to differentiate between true scale-free movement and look-alike variants; for example, composite random walk that is fine-tuned towards producing apparently scale-free movement. First, recall that I make a clear distinction between a mechanistic model and a dynamic model. The former is a special case of a dynamic model, which is broader in scope by including true scale-free processing; i.e ., PP. In