Bayesian rationalists think prediction is what thinking is. Critical rationalists deny many kinds of prediction are even possible, highlighting the growth of knowledge is unpredictable, and that most interesting things rest on this ever-evolving knowledge.https://twitter.com/coponder/status/1239808796647555072 …
-
-
Replying to @reasonisfun @bnielson01
Tbh, I'm having some trouble parsing your statements to arrive at what your stance is. Are you critical of Bayesian rationalists here? Can you give an example of denying a kind of prediction as being possible? I mean this all friendly-like. :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
My understanding comes from predictive processing + friston free energy. My sense of the brain is it creates expectations of the world based on prev input, then compares that to new input. If the expectation and the input differ, you experience surprise (ie a prediction error).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I know some Bayesian rationalists had a tendency to use S2 to crunch probabilities and make predictions verbally, but when I say rationalists want to get good at making predictions, I mean more than that. I'm curious to hear more about what you meant!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @coponder @reasonisfun
Read
@DavidDeutschOxf"s Fabric of Reality (or Beginning of Infinity should work) and he explains using Karl Poppers epistemology that science is not fundamentally about prediction and some things are not predictable.3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
robin Retweeted Myk's the friend of the world as we know it
But it's not a matter of the predictions being *right*, or everything being predictable ultimately - that's totally beside the point. I'm just talking about what brains *do*. This thread points at my sense of science:https://twitter.com/mykola/status/1102009585328631808 …
robin added,
Myk's the friend of the world as we know it @mykolaQuick thread on coincidences, synchronicity and magic. I think it was Gordon White who defined magical practice as working to maximize the number of meaningful coincidences in life. Coincidences are powerful, in a way that's hard to understand at first.Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
"When you're doing science, you're using a very specific narrative convention for the stories you tell. The story has to include falsifiable claims, experimental evidence and congruence with other established scientific stories If you don't include these things it's not science"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.