What is the difference between causation and causality? The former is a consequence of a generative model and the latter is a consequence of a descriptive model.
Causation is the emergent partial ordering induced by computation. Theoretical, all the characteristics of computation such as universality and the halting problem are inherited by the concept of causation.
Causality however is a different thing. It is a process that approximates the causal behavior of complex processes. Approximates in the sense that it describes the process. This is different from simulating the process which has its own intrinsic limitations (Church-Turing).
Brains do not simulate the world. Rather they create approximate models of the world. The more consistent these approximations of reality are, the more competent a brain is in navigating its world.
Therefore, when we speak of brains being able to discover causality in the world, we are really referring to brains building approximate models of the world. But perhaps the use of the word approximate is not a good description.
The adjective 'useful' is better. Organisms create useful models of reality. What this implies is that an organism develops an algorithm that appears to be a heuristic because it is based on an incorrect model of the world. Heuristics leverage useful models of the world.
Civilization was not unencumbered when it used a flat-earth model of the world. It was only a hindrance when global navigation became available. The counter-intuitive notion of traveling in a straight line and returning back to the same point became imaginable.
In other words, the fidelity of our models become more important as our capabilities increase. Moths navigate through the use of light, but they die when that light is a flame. Birds on the other hand have a more advanced model for navigation.
I same thing can be said about human models of the world. The Piraha native tribe of the Amazon have a peculiar model of reality. Where in there is only the now that is of importance. empathy.guru/2020/11/15/wha…
Humans can develop different models of the world. For the Piraha is was only the present moment. For most of civilization, it was the present and the past that was important. They bequeathed understanding of the futures to the gods.
The scope of understanding of modern civilization involves an agency into our collective future. It is surprising that many in our society believe that this is still a domain for the gods. Similar to the Piraha, there is a belief in a 'natural order' of things.
Living things have generative models that are constructed through past experiences. These models influence a living thing's possible actions in the present so that it can condition its intentional future.
Brian Cantwell Smith describes computation as the interplay of intention and mechanism. Organisms intend to survive into the future and they generate their actions based on past amortized experience.
The translation of an intention to action is a generative model. However, the constraints imposed on this generative model is a consequence of a descriptive model of reality.
Descriptive models become more useful when they are consistent across more interpretations. A moth has much more limited awareness of this world and thus has a narrow interpretation. A moth is unable to distinguish a lighted candle from the light of a moon.
Humans have a high-density fovea is around 7 megapixels. We see more detail in this world to be aware of distinctions. We know that a flame is different from the moon because it simply looks different. A moth can't distinguish these signals.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
