5 ms·
They understood cause and effect. They didn't know the causal chain in depth, but they did know that rubbing sticks together caused fire. They also knew that du
by mjfl 7y ago
They understood cause and effect. They didn't know the causal chain in depth, but they did know that rubbing sticks together caused fire. They also knew that dumping water on the ground did not cause it to rain. Thus they could distinguish between correlation and causation.
- aeternum 7y agoMaybe not on the ground, but dumping water on a cat for example was thought to cause it to rain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainmaking_(ritual)#Thailand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainmaking_(ritual)#Thailand
- tabtab 7y agoStone age version of cat videos = real cats.
- nradov 7y agoDid they really understand cause and effect? Primitive cultures frequently used religious ceremonies (cause) to effect changes in the natural world. It didn't actually work, but somehow they fooled themselves into believing that it did.
- goatlover 7y agoAccording to Hume, causality is a habit of mind all humans have from experiencing many situations where A always follows B. And according to Kant, causality is one the categories the mind imposes on the world of sensory impression, like space and time, to make sense of the world. Early childhood studies should be able to answer the question as to whether humans are wired to expect causal relationships. My understanding is that all children do develop that expectation, as do animals.
- cma 7y agoPeople getting umbrellas ready causes it to rain? We take into account models of minds of others etc. into a much more rich understanding of causality than A follows B in time.
- n4r9 7y agoHowever sophisticated it gets, it ultimately boils down to a notion that the exitence of A is somehow responsible for the existence of B.
- tabtab 7y agoLet's break it down into sub-categories: 1. There is a time-based relationship between A and B: they tend to happen close together in time 2. There is a time-based relationship between A and B such that B often happens shortly after A. 3. When I (or bot) creates condition A, then B usually happens. 4. When I (or bot) creates condition A, then B usually does not happen. 5. Science or simulations explain how A triggers B, if #2 is observed. A bot can be programmed to conclude there is a potential causal relationship if #2 happens. If not problematic, the bot can then do experiments to see whether #3 or #4 is the case. If #3 happens, the bot can label the relationship as "likely causal". If #4, label it "probably not causal, but puzzling". #5 would probably be needed to conclude "most likely causal", and is probably an unrealistic expectation for the first generation of "common sense" AI, although they may have a simple physics simulator built in. The highest "causal" score would be #2, #3, and #5 all true.
- n4r9 7y agoI think Hume might respond that #5 is somewhat self-referential or recursive, since science effectively reduces to a set of causal principles.
- tabtab 7y agoAn AI bot could test that theory by opening bunches of umbrellas. It's not too different from something a toddler might try. A parent would see that, chuckle, and explain that clouds cause rain, not umbrellas. It's a "fact" (rule) a parent instills in their child.
- milesskorpen 7y agoI was recently reading an essay (can't find it this second) about how some religious ceremonies actually introduced helpful randomness. For example, if you hunt to the east and find good game, you'd keep hunting to the east. Eventually you'd kill everything over there or get them to move, and your hunting would get worse. The optimal approach might be to randomize the direction you hunt, so that game doesn't learn where you're hunting. The society couldn't say WHY the ceremony was good, but long term if they kept applying the ceremony they'd have better outcomes than societies that didn't. Sometimes superstition is just that ... but I'd also bet there are unintuitive/surprising benefits behind a lot of it.
- imtringued 7y agoThere are psychological benefits. If you believe that things like rain are within your control then you can be confident instead of feeling helpless. Obviously religions take advantage of this desire for the illusion of control and convince followers that practicing the religion will keep their lives free from external bad influences.
- milesskorpen 7y agoSure — I think the randomization concept particularly interests me because it's NOT just psychological. There's actual real-world benefit to doing rituals/read entrails/listening to people speaking tongues vs. not because our instinct or normal habits aren't always right.
- icandoit 7y agoI believe this is the essay you mention: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fnkbdwckdfHS2H22Q/steelmanning-divination-1 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fnkbdwckdfHS2H22Q/steelmanni... It had this context appropriate quote: "One performs the rain sacrifice and it rains. Why? I say: there is no special reason why. It is the same as when one does not perform the rain sacrifice and it rains anyway. When the sun and moon suffer eclipse, one tries to save them. When Heaven sends drought, one performs the rain sacrifice. One performs divination and only then decides on important affairs. But this is not to be regarded as bringing one what one seeks, but rather is done to give things proper form. Thus, the gentleman regards this as proper form, but the common people regard it as connecting with spirits."
- woodandsteel 7y agoWhat is your definition of cause and effect, and how would we go about determining if people in primitive cultures understood it?