No, but Clark Glymour might.Seriously though, our working definition of "A causes B" is that the occurrence of A determines the probability density over the set of possible values of the occurrence of B. There are many ways to quibble with this definition but we were able to construct a set of algorithms for learning causal models (in the form of digraphs) from observational data notwithstanding the quibbles.As I posted recently, Tetrad, the software implementation of those algorithms, won a SAIL award at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference.---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .On Sun, Oct 4, 2020, 9:42 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .Frank,
Causality is one of the great cesspools of philosophy, and I am in no position to pump it. For one thing, it seems to me that causality statements are classic instances of category errors. We speak of event A causing event B, but, whenever we do, we are adverting to evidence that shows that Events of Class A have been necessary or sufficient conditions for event of Class B. So, like any things, causality lives at a higher level of organization than that to which we normally attribute it. We can say that a single event of B following A is consistent with causality, but we probably should be careful never to say that event A caused event B. After all, this instance of B following A, could always, conceivably, be a coincidence.
I would love to know what your collaborators think of that assertion. Is this the kind of thing that George Duncan could dope-slap me about?
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 9:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Shorthands for Brain-stuff
Having worked in the field of causal reasoning for many years I am inclined to say that every event is both a cause and an effect. But perhaps you're using the words differently.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Sun, Oct 4, 2020, 9:11 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
MGD> In your model intents come from the l.teleonomicus, machinery that follows the same rules of physics as everything else.
[NST===>Yes, but not just those laws. <===nst]
What other rules? There are rules that override physics? How is that lump of goo different from any other lump of goo?
Marcus
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |