>order of events is crucial for screening off. Not correct. My offer stands. I understand if you want to wait until covid risks are negligible. Alternatively I could discuss a PowerPoint presentation that I wrote years ago via Zoom.
Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 11:28 AM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Glen, for putting your shoulder to my wheel here. > > > > My first objection is rhetorical. You don't write an abstract about > collisions to introduce a paper about forks, not, at least, without > explaining yourself somewhere in the article. > > > > Second, as the "formula" for screening off, with all it's t1's and t2's > and t3's, would suggest that order of events is crucial for screening > off. > > > > “Pr(R at t1 | I at t2 ) = Pr(R at t1 | I at t2 & S at t1 )” > > > > I have been trying to come up with a verbal version of this expression, a > project which bores the mathematicians in the group because, for them, the > expressions is just the meaning of the concept, and no words are necessary. > But I hope that as a person who lives in both worlds, you might comment on > it. > > > > Screening off means, where AèBèC, A has no effect on C *other than its > effect via B* > > Now, you might be asking me: why the fuck, when Omicron is bearing down on > me, and in-laws from all over the virological world are crashing down on > me, would I be spilling my seed on this? I suppose it’s like sewing name > tags in my clothes before I go into battle. > > > > I hope you and Rene are being smarter than we are about to be. > > > > Nick > > > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 9:16 AM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Dear Long Suffering Colleagues > > > > > > I don't understand your criticism. What do you think is "cocked up"? [⛧] > > > > I'll take a swipe at what might be the problem: The concluding paragraph > seems to make the point that forks *are* (reversed) collisions and > collisions are (reversed) forks. The key may lie in some preemptive > registration of words like "prediction". If you stick to words like > "relation" and "correlation" and toss out all the mechanistic/causal > language, it might be clearer how forks are collisions and vice versa. The > only difference is the *direction* of inference. > > > > But to be clear, despite my guess above, I'm asking a question. What do > you think is wrong, here? > > > > [⛧] For my own convenience, here's the link to the article I *think* > we're talking about: > > methodological behaviorism, causal chains, and causal forks > https://behavior.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/BPv45_SOBER.pdf > > > > On 12/19/21 10:08 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > > */Yes! Right! Thankyou! /* > > > > > > That is now obvious to you because you know that stuff. But for three > > > weeks it has been driving me crazy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now for the second point. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is from the abstract of the article. Not only do we see the same > slip-up with respect to I (I IS after all, the inner state), but we see > also that the abstract entertains an article about causal convergence > (“collision”), not causal forks. Yet every where else, in the title, or in > the body, the article seems to be talking about forks. Even with my weak > knowledge of formal logic and probability, I can see that that would make a > huge difference. Can you confirm also that that is a cockup, so I don’t > spend another month trying to make it make sense? > > > > -- > > "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." > > ☤>$ uǝlƃ > > > > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > > 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/ >
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . 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/
