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 <[email protected]> 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 > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Sunday, October 4, 2020 9:21 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> 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/
