[FRIAM] Shorthands for Brain-stuff

[Frank Wimberly]

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 <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> 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
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 4, 2020 9:21 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *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 <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20201004/178e37ee/attachment.html>