Causality is sometimes like a court trial where evidence must be entered into and facts must be presented in order to prove a case. Sort of, that is.
Causation edited by Sosa and Tooley addresses "causation in great detail". However, if you stick with it, you eventually might come up with causality.
Let me quote a little to you of chapter 1 Causes and Conditions by John L. Mackie. Quote: "Asked what a cause is, we may be tempted to say that it is an event which precedes the event of which it is the cause, and is both
necessary and sufficient for the latter's occurrence; briefly that a cause is a necessary and sufficient preceding condition.
There are, however, many difficulties in this account. I shall try to show that what we often speak of as a cause is a condition not of this sort, but the sort related to this. That is to say, this account
needs modification, and can be modified, and when it is modified we can explain much more satisfactorily how we can arrive at much of what we ordinarily take to be causal knowledge; the claims implicit within our causal assertions can be related to the forms of the evidence on which we are often relying when we assert a causal connection."
The ISBN for this book is 0-19-875094-3 Copyright [circa 1993]reprinted 2002...Oxford University Press.
We need to cite examples of writings that have clearly met the test of causation or state its equal. Nondeclarative unconscious habituation has legs....and so does nondeclarative unconscious sensitization. What else does? Having legs means neurobiological/scientific underpinnings.
Does it mean that if we don't receive any additional examples of subjects along with causation that we simply cannot go forward. I would be interested in your thoughts?
Best,
Rob
Hi Rob,
To quote from your quote: "the claims implicit within our causal assertions can be related to the forms of the evidence on which we are often relying when we assert a causal connection."
Introduces the variable of the Observer into the equation?
Where the observer brings their prior knowledge as the 'evidence on which we are relying when we assert a causal connection'.
Though an exclusive reliance on prior knowledge, creates a 'closed loop', where causation can only be considered in terms of what is known?
Should what is 'not known', only be approached from the point of view of the known?
I would suggest that what is termed as Causation, is in fact an 'overwhelming evidence of Correlation with a spectrum of prior knowledge'?
Causation as a definition, awaiting re-definition?
Geoff.
Hi Geoff,
Thank you for the message. You always give me something to think about? I do know that the deeper that I go into thinking etc., I am also finding "prior knowledge" to be salient. It seem to be a circle!
Be well,
Rob
Hi Rob,
In correlation to your statement:"Causation is not correlation, but is it even close?"
I'm caused to reply and say?
It probably is?
Though perhaps what we are really talking about, is a 'process'?
Having recognised a correlation, we investigate probably, to arrive at a conclusion of causation.
Yet inherent in any conclusion, are the unconsidered variables, or as is termed in Statistics; Degrees of Freedom?
Though perhaps the real underlying problem, is that we view Causation singularly as a Linear Process?
Rather than a complex networked convergence of variables?
Which has parallels with the old "Theory Of Mind" model of the Brain?
Which attempted to define different regions of the brain as operating independently?
So I would suggest that maybe our very way of thinking of Causation as a Linear action, is redundant?
No 'Action' is 100% free of variables?
Therefore, it raises the question of whether we are in denial of variables as intrinsic?
Instead of fully embracing variability?
So I'm caused to come to the conclusion is that Probability is probably a more valid reflection of understanding?
Though I must finish with the variable that I may later contradict myself?
Geoff.
geodob Wrote:Hi Rob,
In correlation to your statement:"Causation is not correlation, but is it even close?"
I'm caused to reply and say?
It probably is?
Though perhaps what we are really talking about, is a 'process'?
Having recognised a correlation, we investigate probably, to arrive at a conclusion of causation.
Yet inherent in any conclusion, are the unconsidered variables, or as is termed in Statistics; Degrees of Freedom?
Though perhaps the real underlying problem, is that we view Causation singularly as a Linear Process?
Rather than a complex networked convergence of variables?
Which has parallels with the old "Theory Of Mind" model of the Brain?
Which attempted to define different regions of the brain as operating independently?
So I would suggest that maybe our very way of thinking of Causation as a Linear action, is redundant?
No 'Action' is 100% free of variables?
Therefore, it raises the question of whether we are in denial of variables as intrinsic?
Instead of fully embracing variability?
So I'm caused to come to the conclusion is that Probability is probably a more valid reflection of understanding?
Though I must finish with the variable that I may later contradict myself?
Geoff.
Hi Geoff,
I believe that causation is also a process and has few....
to many variables. I have read a great deal on causation and now will ask Dr. Larry Squire at University of California at San Diego the same questions. He is a world renowned scientist and we will have lunch together today. I have not met him so....I asked him. There are many questions that I have regarding "necessary and sufficient"; not that it is wrong, but maybe just maybe anachronistic.
Be well,
Rob
Hi...
Just got back from UCSD and the Salk Institute. Larry Squire and I had lunch and we talked a mile a minute. We talked about Causation....and I showed him Christina's quote to us regarding causation. He said that it was very good and correct.
Quote from Christina: It is important to remember that correlation does not imply causation. Most neurobiological research with humans involves correlation, which means definitely only that there is a co-occurrence.
In order to prove causation, scientists must establish that the potential causal factor is both necessary and sufficient for the effect. This type of research can be conducted with animals. For example, in order to prove that a certain neurotransmitter causes a particular effect, one could use the following type of evidence:
a) The elimination of that neurotransmitter (for example, via a genetic knockout with deletion of a gene known to be solely responsible for the production of that hormone) results in the absence of the effect. (necessity)
AND
b) The effect is recovered by administration of the neurotransmitter. (sufficiency)
We also talked about his book with Eric Kandel and other books that Dr. Squire has written. He asked me several questions and we then realized that he lived in Del Mar, California and his children attended one of my schools. I asked him about their education and he felt it was good; except for one textbook that compared the size of the brain to a grapefruit...He brought a real human brain to class and discussed it with the children.
We anyway I am really glad that we met and he gave me a list of lectures in which I might be interested...I am and they start October 4th. While at the Salk Institute, I was given a list of many lectures all through the day and evenings....They begin tomorrow.
Anyway I wanted to share this with you.
Best,
Rob
HI....
I brought this over from the memory thread because it had to do with causation....
Best,
Rob
When speaking with Dr. Larry Squire[co-author with Dr. Eric Kandel, Memory:From mind to molecules], we were discussing causation and meeting the acid test. In that discussion the example that he used in his book regarding the Aplysia and the consequences of habituation and sensitization...were examples of meeting the criteria of 'necessary and sufficient'.
Best,
Rob
Good Morning: January 18, 2006
To prove causation is difficult but should be done
IF the science calls for this close scrutiny. The scientific value must call for causation or a high correlation of evidence. The danger is in "not being honest with the evidence"....substrate or underpinnings..or high correlation, open honesty is the important ingredient for viability.
Best,
Rob