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 ☤>$ <geprope...@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, thompnicks...@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/ >
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . 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/
