[FRIAM] Dear Long Suffering Colleagues

[Frank Wimberly]

Sober is correct.  I wish you would accept my offer to explain this to you
face to face with paper and pencil.

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 4:20 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Here, once again, is the infamous Sober article.   I know.  Half of you
> want to throw me off FRIAM for being so ignorant as to give my time to it,
> while the other half want to throw me off FRIAM for being so ignorant as to
> find fault with it.  I confess that both of these could be true.
>
>
>
> It all revolves the consequences of “screening off” and it’s possible
> relations to the claims of behaviorism.
>
>
>
> First I want to point out what I have now come to believe are devastating
> typos, typos which those of you who have already read the text for me might
> not have noticed because you knew what the passages SHOULD say, and so read
> right over what they actually said   For me, with my very limited gasp of
> probability inference, was completely knocked flat by them and only quite
> recently come to believe that they are typos.
>
> For example, if a stimulus S raises the probability of inner state I,
>
> and I raises the probability of response R, then S raises the probability R, provided
>
> that I screens-off S from I. Screening-off means that
>
>
>
>
>
> Pr(R at t1 | I at t2 ) = Pr(R at t1 | I at t2 & S at t1 ).
>
>
>
>
>
> Note that the two passages contradict one another.    I would simply
> disregard the first passage  if it weren’t repeated in the  document’s
> abstract:
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> Notice also, that this exposition in the abstract contemplates a causal
> collision, where the burden of the article concerns causal forks.
>
>
>
> I have struggled to come up with a verbal account of “screening off” which
> is acceptable to either of my critiques.   Here is another,
>
>
>
> Screening off means, where AèBèC, A has no effect on C other than its
> effect  via B
>
>
>
> Could somebody settle the typo issue for me.
>
>
>
> I will stop for now.
>
>
>
> n
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211219/5797ba32/attachment.html>