[Hans Blom, 960730c]
(Bill Powers (960730.0530 MDT))
An "accountable" change would involve perceiving a relationship
between cause and effect. For example, ...
No more handwaving, no more words. Let's try to be as clear as
possible. Assume a perception C (for cause) and a perception E (for
effect). What is it to perceive a "relationship" between C and E?
Will it be another variable R? If so, computed how? Please no words
but something more rigid.
To say that the change is "unaccountable" means that I experience a
difference between the actual brightness and the brightess I intend to
perceive, but not the cause of the difference.
Call the actual brightness P (for perception) and the intended
brightness R (reference). The difference between both is E (for
error). Now this error E is somehow "unaccountable". That could mean
that there is a reference value for E (let's call it RE) which is not
equal to E. This is again an error between a perception (E) and its
reference (RE). Where is the "unaccountability"? If RE is related to
the cause that you mention (C), how is RE derived from C? Is unac-
countability in the fact that R <> RE = f (C)? If so, is not EVERY
error "unaccountable"? If not, why this one and not others?
Can the relationship RE = f (C) be called an expectation?
My impression is that "unaccountable" is close to or identical with
"unpredictable" or "unexpected".
Where don't I understand you correctly?
Greetings,
Hans