Sober is correct. I wish you would accept my offer to explain this to you face to face with paper and pencil.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 4:20 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Here, once again, is the infamous Sober article. I know. Half of you > want to throw me off FRIAM for being so ignorant as to give my time to it, > while the other half want to throw me off FRIAM for being so ignorant as to > find fault with it. I confess that both of these could be true. > > > > It all revolves the consequences of “screening off” and it’s possible > relations to the claims of behaviorism. > > > > First I want to point out what I have now come to believe are devastating > typos, typos which those of you who have already read the text for me might > not have noticed because you knew what the passages SHOULD say, and so read > right over what they actually said For me, with my very limited gasp of > probability inference, was completely knocked flat by them and only quite > recently come to believe that they are typos. > > For example, if a stimulus S raises the probability of inner state I, > > and I raises the probability of response R, then S raises the probability R, > provided > > that I screens-off S from I. Screening-off means that > > > > > > Pr(R at t1 | I at t2 ) = Pr(R at t1 | I at t2 & S at t1 ). > > > > > > Note that the two passages contradict one another. I would simply > disregard the first passage if it weren’t repeated in the document’s > abstract: > > > > > > E1 and E2, each causally contribute to a > behavior, B. In this case, postulating > > an inner state, I, that is caused by both > E1 and E2, and which causes I, affects > > one's predictions concerning the > relationship between environment and behavior. > > > > > > Notice also, that this exposition in the abstract contemplates a causal > collision, where the burden of the article concerns causal forks. > > > > I have struggled to come up with a verbal account of “screening off” which > is acceptable to either of my critiques. Here is another, > > > > Screening off means, where AèBèC, A has no effect on C other than its > effect via B > > > > Could somebody settle the typo issue for me. > > > > I will stop for now. > > > > n > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
