4 ms·
The causal argument suffers from a problem of nomenclature. On one side we have the colloquial understanding of cause and effect where a cause is a true impetu
by iandanforth 7y ago
The causal argument suffers from a problem of nomenclature.
On one side we have the colloquial understanding of cause and effect where a cause is a true impetus of effect. On the other side we have "causal" learning in biology where you're not actually learning causes, just strong correlations. We can learn just about any temporal association even if there is no direct cause-effect relationship. Random reward structures are a way to illustrate this: present a reinforcing stimulus to an animal at random times and a random subset of behavior will increase in frequency. The animal develops a false "causal" belief that a series of its actions is influencing the presentation of a reward.
That's why I like focusing on "sequence prediction", even colloquially we know predictions can be wrong. Those predictions can be influenced by low-d world models, but you don't accidentally elevate that model to claim a pure/symbolic/accurate model as can happen with incautious use of the words like "causal."
- perl4ever 7y agoYou sound like an expert, but I have a really strong negative reaction to saying the issue is just nomenclature. People give lip service to "correlation is not causation" by say, well, we're not going to call our correlations causation, we're just going to use them like that. There, are your delicate sensibilities satisfied? No! Because if you have the wrong causal relationships whatever you call them used to predict stuff, the predictions will be wrong! Totally, not 1% off.
- mjburgess 7y agoThe key element here is intervention. Animals learn by changing their environment. Superstition in pigeons arises because they believe their actions cause the reward, it isnt "mere sequence". Any distribution over two variables observed overtime, for all time can change unpredictably given an environmental change. Animals have rich models of objects and their behaviour over time, these models aren't "sequential", and they are brought to bare on deciding whether mere sequences should be regarded causally.
- iandanforth 7y ago'Animals have rich models of objects and their behaviour over time, these models aren't "sequential"' This strikes me as patently false, which means I'm probably not understanding what you mean. What does forward simulation mean if it isn't sequential?