[FRIAM] Dear Long Suffering Colleagues
Frank Wimberly
wimberly3 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 20 13:02:25 EST 2021
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 ☤>$ <gepropella at 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, thompnickson2 at 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211220/6b3d704b/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list