I am puzzled by the definition of "cue" as opposed to "cause". I am reviewing the literature about self-generated action (Passingham et al 2010; Nachev 2010; Shuur & Haggard 2011). The authors talk about cues extensively, as conditions that prompt an action. My question is, in what way does a "cue" differ from a "cause"? I keep missing a deep grasp on this.
I would have to review the works myself to be certain, but in general I understand a "cue" to be something that is a trigger for a response, but one that will not necessarily produce any response or the desired response. In the theater, a "cue" is an indication to an actor(ess) that he(she) is suppose to do or say something specific. However, a "cue" can be missed or trigger the wrong response, the actor(ess) is supposed to do or say one thing and instead says or does something else. A "cause" will evoke a specific response consistently. There is no margin of error in what happens in response to a "cause".
You say that cues are non-sufficient conditions for an action. I would add they are also non-necessary as the same action can be prompted by different cues. I guess that much depends also on the granularity of the way cues are specified. More investigation needed, thank you for your time!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Moral Philosophy
- Free Will