I disagree that “control” is misleading. Or rather, I think that the concept of “controlling” something is sort of weird and maybe doesn’t make sense when you drill down on it; and the best ways of turning it into a concept that makes sense (and has practical importance) tends to require taking some correlations into account.
Just saying “correlation” also isn’t sufficient, because not all correlations are preserved across different actions you can take.
I disagree that “control” is misleading. Or rather, I think that the concept of “controlling” something is sort of weird and maybe doesn’t make sense when you drill down on it; and the best ways of turning it into a concept that makes sense (and has practical importance) tends to require taking some correlations into account.
Just saying “correlation” also isn’t sufficient, because not all correlations are preserved across different actions you can take.
I think we’re agreed there. IMO, THAT is the complexity to focus on—what causes decisions, and what counterfactual decisions are “possible”.
It would require asymmetries and counterfactuals, but they exist or at least there are good enough approximations to then.
PS. What effect would the incomprehensibility of control have on the Control Problem?