"Actual Causes and Thought Experiments" --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 10:01 PM Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote: > Some jargon that "we" use. The kind of causation where time order matters > is called "actual causation" or "token causation". Hitting the glass with > a a hammer causes it to break. > > The other kind is called "statistical" or "probabilistic" causation. > Smoking causes cancer. > > See Glymour, et al "Actual Causation and Thought Experiments". > > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 12:03 PM Eric Charles < > eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As repeatedly hammered in the excellent book "Beyond Versus", Sober is >> conflating two things: >> >> 1) A does not cause C except through B. (A-> B -> C with no other arrows) >> >> 2) In this data set, knowledge of B lets us predict C exactly as well as >> we can predict it with combined knowledge of B & knowledge of A. >> >> For the first one, time matters a lot (assuming standard >> forward-casualty views), and for the latter it doesn't matter in the >> slightest. As Glen points out, it could easily be bidirectional. >> >> Also, to Sober's point: YES, if internal mental states existed in a >> Cartesian manner, AND we somehow had perfect knowledge of them, THEN they >> would be higly useful for predicting behavior. But we can all see that >> isn't actually a good arguement for believing in them... right? All the >> math in the world wouldn't change that.... right? >> >> But ALSO, don't forget the crucial point behaviorist-Nick should be >> making... let's say someone punches you, and you kick them back. Let's >> say I happen to be brain scanning when you get punched, and I detect a >> signal in your brain that perfectly predicts you will kick back. That >> signal, is part of the process by which the other guys punch caused your >> kick. The signal is contained in "you kicked back"; it is a component part >> of it. That "you kicked" entails all of that stuff, not just the muscle >> contractions in your leg, which could be caused by knee-tap reflexes, >> external electrical stimulation, or other causes completely unrelated to >> the internal process entailed in "you kicked". >> >> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 4:42 PM Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Instead of "if A is true then B is true" think "if I know the value of A >>> then I know something about the value of B". For instance A = age and B = >>> income. >>> >>> >>> --- >>> Frank C. Wimberly >>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, >>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>> >>> 505 670-9918 >>> Santa Fe, NM >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 2:03 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I think you mean by a "fork" what we call a "common cause". When two >>>> variables are correlated it may be that they have a common cause. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sober’s word, not mine. Yours is the meaning he seems to give it. The >>>> whole article concerns how a causal “fork” breathes life into hypothetical >>>> “inner” variables. The abstract concerns how a causal collision breathes >>>> life into hypothetical “inner” variables. You and glen agree that order >>>> is NOT important, so now I am going to have a rethink. Does it make any >>>> sense to distinguish between logical and temporal order? So B is true, >>>> given A, speaks to logical order. A CAUSES B speaks to temporal order, >>>> unless we have given up on the requirement that the Cause A cannot occur >>>> after A itself. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> N >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick Thompson >>>> >>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>>> >>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly >>>> *Sent:* Monday, December 20, 2021 12:02 PM >>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>>> friam@redfish.com> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Dear Long Suffering Colleagues >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think you mean by a "fork" what we call a "common cause". When two >>>> variables are correlated it may be that they have a common cause. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Frank C. Wimberly >>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, >>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>> >>>> 505 670-9918 >>>> Santa Fe, NM >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 8:17 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> 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/ >>> >> >> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . >> 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/
