Author Topic: Consciousness and thoughts  (Read 10389 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 27, 2016, 05:56:20 AM
Reply #30

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Ah shit. I put it backwards from the beginning. Correlations would be subsets of causation.

No. An enumeration of n would be something like n={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...}. That pretty much means I've listed out the elements of the set n. If I were to enumerate a set of entities of say t, for time, it would be something like t={t0,t1,t2,t3,t4...} (I made the entities redundant in how I rendered them so as to be clear on what I want to point out) where I would do a one to one map to n we would get an index.  We would get something like t={t0[0],t1[1], t2[2], t3[3], t4[4]} via bijection. Causality is pretty much is interpreted to be from the index, but it is not actually an entity within the set of t. Your causal property is said to be from the cardinal property of n which is mapped to the entities in your other set. t0, for example, comes after t1 only because 0 comes after 1. 0 does not cause 1, for example. 1 is just the next number in an enumeration of a sequence. The sequence of natural numbers is not due to causality; rather, it is due to induction where there is an inductive proof for that. Your causal property comes from an interpretation of something like a bijective function(there are other ways you can map) mapping entities to something that has cardinality. Pretty much, I am saying you can't say causality is a superset or a subset in that causality is an interpretation and not a superset of a subset(see this for what I mean Interpretation). Causality is an interpretation of a bijective mapping(there are others but I am keeping it simple) of entities in a set to the cardinality of that set as to create an index.

You were incorrect in your implicit assumptions of what you have if you have a set and relationships to that set(correlations for example). You don't have sets of causes; rather, you have sets that are enumerated in a particular order where the order is interpreted to be causal. In other words, the sets don't actually possess a quality called cause or a member cause - you just have a map. Supersets merely connote what is necessary for that set where extensional members merely are sufficient. When you define causality symbolically, you actually don't end up with a term at all; rather, you end up with a map
« Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 07:39:22 AM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

February 27, 2016, 08:38:14 AM
Reply #31

ActionOfAll

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 82
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
Rayn, what would you recommend as a good resource to learn more about the philosophy of causality? Perhaps a non-mathematicians resource to becoming adequately acquainted with causality, thermodynamics, and statistical analysis in general?

This is not my area of study. Preferably something more advanced than a source for laymen, but not something for the advanced scholar who is an expert in that particular field.

Thanks.

February 27, 2016, 08:49:01 AM
Reply #32

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Rayn, what would you recommend as a good resource to learn more about the philosophy of causality? Perhaps a non-mathematicians resource to becoming adequately acquainted with causality, thermodynamics, and statistical analysis in general?

Death and Heat Death
« Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 08:55:40 AM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

February 28, 2016, 07:52:59 AM
Reply #33

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Causations have the following elements -> {two things being related, modify one thing and measure a modification in the other thing, linking mechanism} <- Correlations have the italicized elements.

[EDIT]
Ergo, we can rewrite it as such: Causation -> {Correlation, linking mechanism}

Unless you can provide an example of an essential element found in correlation that isn't found in causation? To be clear on this, I'm not asking for several paragraphs of your understanding of the subject. I'm asking for a property of correlation; nice and simple, shouldn't take more than 20 words.
[/EDIT]

~Steve
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 08:20:00 AM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

February 28, 2016, 08:43:29 AM
Reply #34

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
[EDIT]
Ergo, we can rewrite it as such: Causation -> {Correlation, linking mechanism}

Unless you can provide an example of an essential element found in correlation that isn't found in causation? To be clear on this, I'm not asking for several paragraphs of your understanding of the subject. I'm asking for a property of correlation; nice and simple, shouldn't take more than 20 words.
[/EDIT]

When you have a correlation, you have a relationship between at least two dimensions - an x and a y. This means you have y=f(x) where y's get x's. This is a function. The sets for a function are called intervals. Causation is not an interval.Correlations are functions and functions have intervals and intervals don't have causation. By the way, your notation is nonsense. You made it up, in other words - just like you make up Physics. It is not actual interval notation and functions get intervals. Linking mechanism has no lexical meaning and your notation of causality is nonsense; therefore, it has no mathematical validity and correlations are mathematical. That is all I have to say on the subject, because, to be honest, this like explaining to someone that 1+1 is not 4. The sets for a function, which is what a correlation is, are your intervals, and all you will get from an interval is your smallest unit to your biggest unit. You will get something increased or decreased some amount of units. That's it.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 02:41:00 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

February 28, 2016, 02:35:18 PM
Reply #35

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
That's more than 20 words and didn't satisfy my requirements. I'm ignoring it.

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

February 28, 2016, 03:02:42 PM
Reply #36

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
That's more than 20 words and didn't satisfy my requirements. I'm ignoring it.

No, I actually gave you what you asked, but you are doing what you always do; you ask for something, people give it to you, you pretend like you didn't get it(if you even read it), and you ignore it, because it doesn't agree with what you expect it to say. I have seen you do this with just about everyone person you argue with on here. You even go so far as to blatantly state you did not read what the other person said or that you did not read whatever evidence you asked for. The set for a correlation is your interval. The property of a correlation is y=f(x). Your interval for a function will say there is a decrease or increase some number of units. That is it. It is literally as simple as counting and adding. Counting and adding can be described as f(x)=x+1 f(x)=x. When you count and add, you are merely increasing the amount of something you have. You are not saying one apple causes two apples when you add another apple. In other words, this is literally like arguing with someone about counting! You can ignore it, but it is pretty much consensual within academia that correlations do not mean causality. Not to mention this isn't Twitter. I am not subject to arbitrary word constraints. You just look silly, not to mention childish, for rejecting something just because it is too long. When it comes to correlations, you get causality from a mapping of ordered sets. It is pretty much common sense, to be frank. Again, when you count and add, you don't consider an increase in a number of apples as one apple causing the other two apples; rather, you just see it as an increase in the amount you have. That is a function. Correlations are functions - like counting and adding.   
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 09:26:41 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

February 28, 2016, 03:17:47 PM
Reply #37

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Quote
but it is pretty much consensual within academia that correlations do not mean causality
If you think that's what I was proposing, then you're once again straw manning it. Never did I say that correlations imply causation.

And since we're on things that the other does that we find annoying, I find it annoying that you have never once acknowledged when you were wrong about anything, not even a simple thing. Instead, you either drop it entirely, or you ignore it for a post or two and them turn around and act like you were right about it the whole time even to the point of offering condescending messages about how I was wrong the whole time.

The reason for the 20 words or less is because it's not that hard of an argument. If you can't do it in 20 words or less, then maybe try linking a resource. After all, I don't exactly trust you at your word when you say something is true, because of the above.

Here, here's your post summed up in 20 words or less:
Correlation has intervals. Causation doesn't. Correlation can't be a subset of causation.
12 words.

As for "linking mechanism" having no lexical meaning, then try causal mechanism? http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/Encyclopedia%20entries/Causal%20mechanisms.htm Did you even try to understand what I said, or are you just too hopped up on your own ego and desire to prove others wrong to bother trying to understand what they have to say?

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

February 28, 2016, 03:21:40 PM
Reply #38

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Quote
but it is pretty much consensual within academia that correlations do not mean causality
If you think that's what I was proposing, then you're once again straw manning it. Never did I say that correlations imply causation.

... You did. You, at first, said that causality is a subset of correlation. This means that causality is implied by a correlation. You then said that correlations are a subset of causality. This means correlations are implied by causality. You can't accuse me of straw manning you when your entire premise has been one of those positions at a time where one implies the other. See below:

On the other hand, what's the evidence, not the philosophy, that says otherwise? After all, 1) the scientific advancements are still underway, and 2) causation is a subset of correlation (that has to be proven to a higher standard than correlation. In other words, what is seen as correlation now could turn into causation with more experiments and evidence).

Ah shit. I put it backwards from the beginning. Correlations would be subsets of causation.

As for "linking mechanism" having no lexical meaning, then try causal mechanism? http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/Encyclopedia%20entries/Causal%20mechanisms.htm Did you even try to understand what I said, or are you just too hopped up on your own ego and desire to prove others wrong to bother trying to understand what they have to say?

What I said still stands. What you said is not mathematically or logically lexical. The thing that is the "if" is called the antecedent. The thing implied by the antecedent is the consequent. Linking mechanism is thus not logically lexical nor is it mathematically lexical. It is only lexical, in terms of that link, in Hume's paradigm, but that is not what is being discussed, so giving me that link does nothing to support your stance. Antecedents simply create a conditional in terms of a hypothetical syllogism. Strictly speaking, causality, or causal mechanism, is not synonymous with antecedent in that the conditional is derived from either p or its negation being true in terms of a disjunction. You're dealing with a logical operator essentially. Pretty much, I can say p or !p which can be read as if p then !p; it's a disjunction and not a causal mechanism. It only becomes one in particular paradigm. Causality is actually a rather difficult thing to pin down in symbolic languages(logic and mathematics). Why do you think people are still trying to figure it out?

The reason for the 20 words or less is because it's not that hard of an argument. If you can't do it in 20 words or less, then maybe try linking a resource. After all, I don't exactly trust you at your word when you say something is true, because of the above.

I sent you a link that explained exactly what I just said.

See below:


See this:

Increasing and decreasing functions

And since we're on things that the other does that we find annoying, I find it annoying that you have never once acknowledged when you were wrong about anything, not even a simple thing. Instead, you either drop it entirely, or you ignore it for a post or two and them turn around and act like you were right about it the whole time even to the point of offering condescending messages about how I was wrong the whole time.

That is actually not true. I actually know off the top of my head a thread where I told you I was wrong and you were right. It was the discussion about the Spanish translitteration of the Tettragrammaton. That counts as once, Steve. See below:

In this instance I'm pretty sure Steve is correct there.  "Yod" is a transliteration of a letter in the Hebrew alphabet.  YHVH is the roman letter equivalent of Jehovah (the vowels are removed), and when used amidst English the letters are most commonly transliterated as something like Yod He Vau He.  See the Hebrew alphabet.  The only difference in the talisman Forg was interested in is that the letter "He" is being written "Je".  One can easily deduce that this means it has been transliterated into one of the languages in which "Je" is pronounced closer to the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. 

Yes, He and Je are similar in sound, so when explained like this, it seems plausible. So, I owe Steve an apology for being so insulting.

But, really, this conversation has hit its end. There is nowhere else to go besides personal attacks, which I am not going to engage further in.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 04:48:18 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

February 28, 2016, 06:39:47 PM
Reply #39

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Quote
This means correlations are implied by causality.
Yes, that one I meant to say from the beginning. I accidentally said it the other way around, and then corrected myself. So I am not saying that correlations imply causality, but I will say that causation implies correlation, because it kind of has to. How do you have a causation effect, where influencing one thing literally affects something else directly, and say that there's no correlation between them, where correlation is the observation that influencing one thing somehow affects another thing?

Quote
It is only lexical, in terms of that link, in Hume's paradigm, but that is not what is being discussed, so giving me that link does nothing to support your stance.
You don't get to tell me what I'm discussing. If I'm discussing causation in terms of there being a causation/linking mechanism then that's what I'm discussing. You get to tell me what you are discussing. But if you're going to jump in on my conversation and tell me I'm wrong about something, then you need to acknowledge that you're not in control of what definitions I'm using, nor of what overall topic I'm discussing it from. We've been over this time and time again.

Quote
Why do you think people are still trying to figure it out?
Because they're trying to get more accurate than is needed to have a discussion about causality at a certain level. Just like with, oh, I dunno, gravity? At a basic level we all know what gravity generally is, but then some people decide they want to get to know it at a more technically precise level. It doesn't mean that the basic level is wrong, just that it could be more accurate.

At a certain level of discussion, causality is not rocket science. I can distinctly say that a wrecking ball hitting a wall is the cause of the wall crumbling, and that's a clear example of causality at that level of discussion. Then people want to get more technical and be like "well, it's the combination of the mass and the velocity of the ball, and the transfer of energy upon impact, where a greater amount of energy is transferred than the wall can withstand, etc" and then others want to get even more technical and be like "well, speaking of energy and impacts, what we're really looking at is the 'impact' of molecules against one another, so we need to look at the interactions of atoms and electromagnetic forces and whatnot", and then someone else comes along and is like "yeah.. but... what put the wrecking ball up there in the first place? I mean, it's kind of the operator of machine that caused the ball to smash into the wall, so we have to say that he's involved in it too since the ball wouldn't do that all on its own without someone else first acting upon it" etc etc.

Quote
That is actually not true. I actually know off the top of my head a thread where I told you I was wrong and you were right. It was the discussion about the Spanish translitteration of the Tettragrammaton.
Oh, wow. I was wrong again. You did manage to acknowledge you were wrong once. Was that only a year and 3 months ago? Time sure flies. Of course, that's when you were dealing with kobok instead of me, but whatever.

Quote
But, really, this conversation has hit its end.
This conversation hit its end a long time ago. You just didn't seem to see it.

EDIT:
Oh, but I guess I also have to add that you did indeed send me a link. And... it's pretty much the same concept in different words. Interpretation for words, subset for numbers, whatever. It's not the words I'm using that you should be fretting over, but the concepts being discussed. If you know I'm using the "wrong word for your mathematical lexicon" but you understand the concept I'm trying to talk about none-the-less, then maybe don't make a big deal out of words and definitions that are found in mathematics when I'm not talking in terms of mathematics?

~Steve
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 06:47:46 PM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

February 29, 2016, 06:13:59 AM
Reply #40

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
You don't get to tell me what I'm discussing. If I'm discussing causation in terms of there being a causation/linking mechanism then that's what I'm discussing. You get to tell me what you are discussing. But if you're going to jump in on my conversation and tell me I'm wrong about something, then you need to acknowledge that you're not in control of what definitions I'm using, nor of what overall topic I'm discussing it from. We've been over this time and time again.

You said correlation, so I can expect you to use terms properly in that context. The only way you plug that into a correlation is via an inequality which gets you back to what I stated. I also just asked a Logic and Philosophy professor about what you sent me. He said that hypothetical syllogisms can be interpreted to be causal, but they are pretty much definitional. He pretty much said that Hume is defining what is real and exists, so it is not so much about causality as it is about realism where hypothetical syllogisms tend to be definitional. He said, theories, on the other hand, are different and little bit harder to pin down, because theories can't really be true or false whereas definitional syllogisms can be true or false. He said science can't be absolutely true or absolutely false; it can only be probably true and probably false. He said when dealing with correlations when it comes to psychology(he actually did some clinical psychology work), you end up with theories where theories lead to pragmatism. He then gave me an example of how psychoanalysis can be used to treat people with psycho-pathologies due to repression but not people with schizophrenia and vice versa where he highlighted that there were two thoughts about pathologies at work - they work in different situations where sometimes you treat people with medication and sometimes what is wrong with them is psychological where you use a form of analytical psychotherapy. 

I also asked him about how to limit lexical ambiguity in a conversation. He said you defer to an expert or an authority(a person with credentials), or you utilize the lexicon for a particular paradigm. In the case of math and science, textbooks and journals normally have a glossary. He said you can't really go with a general dictionary. If you are talking science, he said, you go with what terms the person in the science field uses or you pull from a journal or textbook. I brought up how I have "debates with this person" and they pull out a dictionary and give lexical definitions; however, those definitions that science uses are not there. He told me that they wouldn't be. You would need a science journal, text book, expert, or authority in science to define them. Between the two of us, Steve, I am the one with credentials, so I am more of an authority than you.

Also, please don't type out an obnoxious post to him. I'm referencing him; however, he is not included in the conversation nor is he on the forum, so it is kind of over the top and obnoxious to do(my math professor did not see the other obnoxious post you typed for the record). 

I am actually concerned with what is true and what is false, so on matters like this, I actually do have extensional forms of these conversations by proxy with others academically in such a way that I can get an idea of the consensus.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 06:39:10 AM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

February 29, 2016, 09:51:49 AM
Reply #41

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Quote
You said correlation, so I can expect you to use terms properly in that context.
Oh, well there's the a problem.

correlation
noun
1.
mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.:
Studies find a positive correlation between severity of illness and nutritional status of the patients.
Synonyms: similarity, correspondence, matching; parallelism, equivalence; interdependence, interrelationship, interconnection.
2.
the act of correlating or state of being correlated.
3.
Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.
4.
Physiology. the interdependence or reciprocal relations of organs or functions.
5.
Geology. the demonstrable equivalence, in age or lithology, of two or more stratigraphic units, as formations or members of such.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/correlation

You assumed we should use definition 3. I was using definition 5. [/sarcasm] (more on using definitions below)

Quote
I also just asked a Logic and Philosophy professor about what you sent me.
Seems I need to address the link I sent you: I sent it solely because you were whining about "linking mechanism" not being a proper term, so I linked something that used the term "causal mechanism" instead, which is what I was talking about ("synonym" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synonym?s=t ). I didn't even read the rest of that link. It was purely because you were going on about terminology (more on this below).

Quote
In the case of math and science, textbooks and journals normally have a glossary. He said you can't really go with a general dictionary. If you are talking science
There's another problem. Well, actually it's two problems, and we've been over both of these multiple times before. I provide a definition for the way I'm using a term (okay, in this thread I didn't. I just used the term without defining it), and you try to force me to use a different definition. I'm talking about a topic in a completely non-mathematical manner, and you try to force it into a discussion of math. Hi, I'm having tea and crumpets over here; why don't you come join me at my table once in a while, rather than constantly demanding that I come to your table.

Quote
Between the two of us, Steve, I am the one with credentials, so I am more of an authority than you.
I don't recognize you as being An Authority in any scientific field. That would be like a 15 year old telling a 12 year old "I'm smarter than you, so I'm right." Just because you have "more credentials" doesn't mean you're an authority.

Also, in regards to that long ago thing where you mentioned your credentials and told me to trust you because of your credentials, and I said that's a logical fallacy, and you said you laugh whenever people mention logical fallacy whenever someone mentions credentials: the Appeal to Authority is not about just mentioning the credentials; it's about using your credentials as a way of cheating, of trying to say "I don't need to provide arguments or evidence for what I'm saying, because I/this-authority says it's true". So mentioning your credentials is fine; requiring that I believe you because of your credentials is not fine.

Quote
Also, please don't type out an obnoxious post to him. I'm referencing him; however, he is not included in the conversation nor is he on the forum, so it is kind of over the top and obnoxious to do(my math professor did not see the other obnoxious post you typed for the record).
If you bring him into the discussion by showing him the discussion and asking him about it and then using his statements as a reply, and use him as an authority figure, then he's now part of the conversation. Or at least he could be, if I wanted to speak to him. I don't think I do, though.

Quote
I am actually concerned with what is true and what is false
You mean what is "probably" true and "probably" false?


A couple more things regarding the topic at hand, because you've made references to these things previously and in the last post:
Quote
The point of view that correlation implies causation may be regarded as a theory of causality, which is somewhat inherent to the field of statistics. Within academia as a whole, the nature of causality is systematically investigated from several academic disciplines, including philosophy and physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#Determining_causation
So, as your professor so nicely pointed out, if you want to know which definition to use, you first check which discipline you're talking about.

(I have to use wikipedia because so few people seem to be willing to comment on even the basic nature of recognizing when you have causation from correlative data, since causation is such a huge topic still being hashed out (partially because some people are being stupid and trying to say there's no such thing as causation, or trying to raise the bar for proving causation to impossible standards). Plenty of sources want to caution to confirm whether you really have a causative effect, or whether it's only correlative, but so few want to say how to determine one from the other. More on this below)

Quote
Outside the field of philosophy, theories of causation can be identified in classical mechanics, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, spacetime theories, biology, social sciences, and law.[15] To establish a correlation as causal within physics, it is normally understood that the cause and the effect must connect through a local mechanism (cf. for instance the concept of impact) or a nonlocal mechanism (cf. the concept of field), in accordance with known laws of nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#Determining_causation
Did you attempt to discern which definition from which discipline ActionOfAll or I were using before you jumped in and assumed mathematics/statistics? No, you assumed we would be talking about a subject from within your personally preferred field(s) despite neither of us mentioning statistics or mathematics at all. Maybe ActionOfAll was talking about it from statistics: I can't speak for him, but he never said (granted, I never said either, mostly because I attempted to subvert the entire discussion with an incredibly simplistic argument).

Secondly, the "linking mechanism" once again crops up but this time as "local mechanism" rather than "causal mechanism". Wow, so many different terms for one thing, it's almost like scientists/academics love using synonyms for no other purpose than to confound people. Assholes. ¨_¨

Back to determining one from the other: How to determine causation from correlation, because contrary to what you said before, causation actually does have the increase in relation that you mentioned earlier (unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant by increase, in which case I'd say that your version of it is specific to statistics and not necessary in the other definitions found in other disciplines)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria Determining causation from correlation. There's other things as well that you probably know off the top of your head, so I'm listing this more for anyone else than for you, but the point being that if we go from correlation to causation by testing and confirming causation, then we come right back to my statement that we can see correlation as being a subset of causation (did I get that right this time? Causation has everything that correlation has, plus the local/causal/linking mechanism. I don't even remember which site I picked up the term "linking mechanism" from).

Not that my statement really mattered in the first place. It should never have spawned a debate. Even if we wanted to get into the topic of correlation versus causation in terms of whether thoughts first crop up in the mind and then are reflected in the brain, or whether they are created in the brain first (and then it doesn't matter whether there's a mind for them to become reflected in), this could have been discussed and debated from a much better direction than "correlation is not a subset of causation" (once again, I will acknowledge that I stated it wrong in the first place, so I can see why you'd have wanted to respond to that, but that could have been dealt with so much quicker if you'd just told me I had it backwards rather than going into all that rambling you did), if you really cared. Hence why I posted the simple link about recreating thoughts directly from looking at the brain, and then asked for any evidence that thoughts might come from the mind first, or at all.

We have direct evidence of reading thoughts in the brain. What do we have regarding reading thoughts from the mind? (some theories of Psychicism, but that could just be anecdotal evidence, and it could turn out to actually be from the brain as well, through some "weird-ass applications that we haven't discovered yet" of "physics that we have discovered already". Don't know. Do care. Time and experimentation will tell better than arguing about it will)

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

February 29, 2016, 12:23:32 PM
Reply #42

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Quote
You said correlation, so I can expect you to use terms properly in that context.
Oh, well there's the a problem.

correlation
noun
1.
mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.:
Studies find a positive correlation between severity of illness and nutritional status of the patients.
Synonyms: similarity, correspondence, matching; parallelism, equivalence; interdependence, interrelationship, interconnection.
2.
the act of correlating or state of being correlated.
3.
Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.
4.
Physiology. the interdependence or reciprocal relations of organs or functions.
5.
Geology. the demonstrable equivalence, in age or lithology, of two or more stratigraphic units, as formations or members of such.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/correlation

You assumed we should use definition 3. I was using definition 5. [/sarcasm] (more on using definitions below)

Steve, all of those definitions utilize functions, so regardless of which one you use, you will arrive to my point. You can insert causality, how you are trying to, via an inequality; however, you will get back to intervals. No matter which one you pick, you are going to end up with a function, because the properties of correlation are mathematical. If you graph 2x+1, for example, the 2 will tell you your slope is increasing 2 y for 1 x in such a way that you get a positive correlation in terms of two dimensions. If you graph -2x+1, you get something decreasing 2 y for 1 x. This is assuming the correlation is not a constant. The point is that your positive or negative correlation is contingent on the slope. All the definitions you gave me would involve something like that. Your conditional which is equivalent to that "if" antecedent would be your y. In something like -2x+1=3 or 2x+1<3, you have a conditional statement that can be read that if x=-1, you -2x+1 will equal 3 for the equation. All the definitions you gave me would be modeled as such, period.

In other words, if we say the antecedent is cause and the consequent is effect, you will get a conditional -2x+1=3 being true only if x=-1; however, that will just give you an element of the interval of the function. You get right back to what I said no matter what definition you use. Steve, it's math. You are literally trying to argue with something you cannot disprove regardless of what definition you use. x=-1 being a condition of -2x+1=3 is a deductive proof where these proofs are tautological. The interval you get is (-∞,∞) . This means it is true regardless of the interpretation. You literally can't disprove it Steve. If you want to call causal mechanisms your if and then statements, when you set it up algebraically, you still arrive at what I told you. There is literally no logical or mathematical way for you to prove this. The definitions you used obey would be functions, so pick whichever you definition you want; you'll still wind up at what I said. I also find it amusing that due to cherry picking your sources, you are forced to rely on an unreliable resource(the information changes where sometimes its good and sometimes its bad). Pretty much your cognitive bias is causing you to rely heavily on an unreliable source.

I have given you mathematical reason after mathematical reason as to why you are you wrong, and all the definitions you presented use functions.

By the way, society says I am more of an authority than you, whether or not you acknowledge it. Your lack of a science degree would make it very very hard for you to work in labs. When it comes to the subject, society also would acknowledge the same thing, because you are attempting to ground it in Biology, which I have credentials in. In other words, it does not matter if you don't acknowledge it, society will do it for you. Society says you are a layperson. Society says I am not. This means the societal consensus is I am more of an authority than you because I have more credentials; it doesn't matter if you reject this, for that is the consensus. I could actually teach(you can actually get degree in something like Biology with a teacher certification in terms of particular programs). You can't. My credentials give me more weight in terms of credibility in society, so it doesn't matter if you reject this, because society, as a whole, does not. Personally, I don't care. I just find it amusing, because the stark reality is that you can't work in scientific or mathematical fields like I can (nor do you have the education I have), because you would be seen as less credible than me and therefore less competent.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 01:10:36 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

February 29, 2016, 01:14:08 PM
Reply #43

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Maybe I should come at it from a different angle instead.

Everything I've read about properly establishing causation in a pragmatic sense (as opposed to theoretical) starts off with the assumption of having a correlation, and then you add more information (the causal mechanism) in order to establish a causative relationship between the previously correlated variables. Nowhere does anyone remove information in order to go from correlation to causation.

So what I can't wrap my head around, is where you are coming from when you say that a causation is not a superset of a correlation, or that a correlation is not a subset of a causation (unless it's a purely definition based objection; saying that the terms subset and superset come from math, and therefore are inappropriate terms to use here). You are saying that causation does not have intervals. Is it my imagination or are you assuming that you could get values that don't exist in the real world?

For instance, when discussing the relationship between "distance from sea level" to "temperature": you can't get a to height of 1 million miles (because the limit of the relationship is within atmosphere), nor can you get a temperature of -500F if you just keep going further and further up. And yet these two are strongly negatively related (increase in height, decrease in temperature, within limits). http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html there for a chart

The causal relationship between them has to do with air pressure and the way that temperature works in different densities, but that's a different discussion. The point here being that there is a causal relationship between them, which someone can show to be causal, and it's still a correlative relationship as well. The correlation did not disappear with the observation of a causal relationship.


Quote
In something like -2x+1=3 or 2x+1<3, you have a conditional statement that can be read that if x=-1, you -2x+1 will equal 3 for the equation. All the definitions you gave me would be modeled as such, period.

In other words, if we say the antecedent is cause and the consequent is effect, you will get a conditional -2x+1=3 being true only if x=-1; however, that will just give you an element of the interval of the function.
Cause this part, I don't get. Why are you limiting it to just one value? If x=-3 then -2(-3)+1=7. That's another point along the graph. However, real life correlations are not graphs first that then get put into real form; they are points of real world observational or experimentally collected data that get plotted on a graph. So you *first* start with plot points of: "temperature of 59F" and "at Sea Level", "51.9" at "2000 feet above sea level", "44.7" at "4000 feet", 37.6 at "6000 feet", etc. You then graph those points, and then you ... what's the correct term here... approximating an average? Is that the right term? It's been a while. Where you draw a line that averages out the plot points at the various intervals along the x and y axis (which, there's a couple of ways to do it, depending on what you want to illustrate). Ie, the lines in the middle of the scattergram here http://www.simplypsychology.org/correlation.html

So, we have plot points, a scattergram, a graph. Now, how do we establish causation from there? Do we remove plot points? Do we kill the graph? Do we alter the slope? What do we lose when we go from correlation to causation, where both are in the pragmatic sense of having collected real world data?

When we establish causation, does x=-3 (or "temperature 51.9F at 2000 feet above sea level") suddenly become impossible, if it were already established as a real world plot/data point during the correlation?

------
Quote
In other words, it does not matter if you don't acknowledge it, society will do it for you. Society says you are a layperson. Society says I am not. This means the societal consensus is I am more of an authority than you because I have more credentials; it doesn't matter if you reject this, for that is the consensus. I could actually teach(you can actually get degree in something like Biology which a teacher certification in terms of particular programs). You can't.
So an appeal to popularity and an appeal to authority. Two in one, not bad. Now the objective question: What does it really take to become established as An Authority in a scientific field? Stephen Hawking isn't an authority in (his discipline in) science just because people love his synthesized voice.

Further, I could actually teach. Not in biology, but in "computer stuff". I'd need another diploma or degree related to actual teaching, ie Bachelor of Education, but then you'd need that too, depending on your state. But once again, my bachelor degree does not make me An Authority in Computer Information Systems (or "Technology" as it's titled here in Canada) anymore than your degree in Biology makes you An Authority (the lay people who would hold you as an authority are idiots and not to be trusted as to what they consider to be An Authority. After all, they don't know anything about the subject matter; how could they possibly know what makes Person A An Authority but not Person B?). And then pass the tests

https://www.teach.org/teaching-certification (that's an american site, since you're american).
1. Obtaining a bachelorís degree
2. Completing a teacher preparation program, which includes either an undergraduate, masterís, or alternative program
3. Getting state or national certification to teach by completing all requirements

So we both have step 1 in our respective fields. Next we'd need steps 2 and 3, and then any specific state requirements (assuming I wanted to teach in america. Obviously I would need to fulfill the Canadian requirements if I wanted to teach here)

~Steve
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 01:17:49 PM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

February 29, 2016, 01:22:20 PM
Reply #44

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Double post since we're both here and you're editing your post:

OH, and since we're on the topic of our degrees and authority derived from those degrees: You have a Bachelors in Biology, not mathematics nor statistics. If you really wanted to push the idea that I have to accept what you say at face value, in the discipline of your degree, then that would be in topics of Biology, not mathematics nor statistics.

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?