[FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

Frank, 

 

Is my ham sandwich example apt, or not?

 

N

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:38 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf

 

"Screening off" is an informal term of art in causal reasoning.  If A,B, and C are random variables, the Causal Markov Condition asserts that if A causes B and B causes C then knowing the value of A provides no information about the probability density of C over knowing the value of B.

 

It is also said that B screens off the causal effect of A on C.

 

I hope that helps,

 

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 10:07 AM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi, All, 

 

If any of you had any spare brain time, I am interested in  the attached VERY SHORT <https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a>  article:

 

I am struggling here with the idea of "screening off".  Does it mean more or less than the following:  Granted that, If I had ham, and I had eggs, I would have ham and eggs, having eggs screens off having ham from having ham and eggs?   Screening off seems a very odd metaphor.  Is it a term of art in logic?

 

Also, a general problem I have with causality:  My understanding of causality is that event A can cause event B  if and only if A is independently known from B (an event cannot cause itself) AND occurs prior to B  Now imagine  two perfectly meshed gears, such that motion in one is instantly conveyed to the other.  I turn gear A and gear B turns.  Has the motion in A caused the turning of B or has my turning of A caused the motion of B?  With the gears, this may just seem like a fussy “in the limit” sort of question, but there seem to be other phenomena where it’s worth asking.  Does the discharge of potential along the ionized (?) path CAUSE the lightning?

 

I realize that the rest of you have spouses, dogs, cats, hobbies, and day jobs, but any off hand thoughts you have on these matters would be greatly appreciated. 

 

Nick 

 

You can view "PM-2017-MethodologicalBehaviorismCausalChainsandCausalForks(1).pdf" at: 

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6e9c10b-06dc-4ea1-8ffa-d450df62489a

 

________________

Sent with Adobe Document Cloud. Click on the link above to access the file online. No sign up or installation of Acrobat is required to access.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> 
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210210/0e29bc01/attachment.html>