User talk:ZuluPapa5/Causal Learning

Hello Zulu, I have a problem with your contingency table. If a cause is identified with a sufficient condition (some philosophers do this) the "cause - no effect" contingency is not possible. If cause is identified with a necessary condition then the "no cause - effect" contingency is not possible. Or am I missing the point here? --Logicalgregory (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2011(UTC)

I took this from the first ref in the list. Interesting point, about how cause and effect are related. Seems to be pivotal issue, like a false premise to an effect. I suspect, this quadrant is key to the development of the countefactual definition. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a brief look at the ref (nice to see you have on-line sources). Its difficult for me to say anything about it without going into the area of original research. The people you cite are psychologists whereas I am coming out of philosophy and into knowledge elicitation for artificial intelligence. My own work on cause and effect is on-line and can be found at Wikisource (look up "Frank Hutson Gregory" at Wikisource and it will take you to my author page). A comparison of work in my area with that of your Causal learning psychologists would be interesting but way beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article. --Logicalgregory (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a professional interest in this subject, with no publications. For man and machine interface with computer integrated systems. I supect an interdisciplinary approach between psychology and machine learning will be required. Will check out your Wikisoruce.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interdisciplinary between psychology, machine learning and philosophy. Unfortunately interdisciplinary work is difficult to publish. So, although there is a lot to be gained in terms of human knowledge, its easier and a better career move for academics and research workers to stay in their own very narrowly defined subject area. Indeed, in many Universities academic staff are discouraged from publishing outside their own subject area. One of many problem with the current system for publishing research work.--Logicalgregory (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, being an entrepreneur means I like to offer services and products (usually from interdisciplinary teams). Happy customers are key to my survival. Traditional publishing can be an authoritarian world. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just authoritarian, very political. - you publish mine and I'll publish yours etc. The system of blind refereeing just encourages this. One of the reasons why new information channels like Wikipedia are interesting - everything is out in the open (or should be). But getting back to causal learning and machine learning, I just put up (today) a new Wikipedia page that deals with both of these. See: Logico-linguistic modeling. Its a lot easier to read than the stodgy papers at my author's page. Its still an unreviewed article so, if you could take a look at it, you would be doing me a favour.--Logicalgregory (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is what really motivates me Pratitya-samutpada#Pratityasamutpada_in_Dzogchen, apparently it's the same issue you originally identified, and there is a whole (highly authoritarian) Buddhist Dzogchen school devoted to it. Happen to know a few of these folks ... not too many intrested in machine learning, However, I know one traditional Buddhist scholar who is always applying computer metaphors in his teaching. I'll check out your new page. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logico-linguistic modeling ... seems to strike my interests. I am connecting s to q with machined iterations, before discharging the patient. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting in the link at the Soft Systems Methodology page. I tried to do this yesterday but got a "link does not exist" response. Now it works without any problem. I've still got a lot to learn about Wikipedia.

On the Dzogchen it might be the same issue but the big problem here is translating Tibetan into English. I could go on about English and Oriental languages for ages. But basically when I speak Thai I do not translate what I am thinking in English, if I try I end up speaking nonsense, instead I rethink the whole idea and say something else. --Logicalgregory (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dzogchen view is key, and aside that the Buddha sough to diagnose suffering with the four noble truths, it is perhaps a reason why Buddhism is so closely related to scientific reasoning, by counter-factual arguments. My insight into Tibetan English, is that English is Subject Verb Object while Tibetan like Japanese is Subject Object Verb, the difference being the Subject is closer to the Object, which is the fundamental basis for Nondualism and goes goes onto quantum stuff. On another issue, I guess I developed through observation, a unique Logical-lingusutic model; however, am not comfortable sharing publicly. Perhaps your work will help me better construct a thesis. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the counterfactual thing. I followed the link from your causal learning piece to the Wikipedia article on counterfactuals. Found it very confusing. See my comments at counterfactual conditional/discussion/confused about the protasis. Perhaps you can answer my two simple questions. I think I remember that Kennedy example and never liked it. --Logicalgregory (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look, but to me NPOV means bringing the schooled issues together into an appropriate article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't understand what NPOV is.--Logicalgregory (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]