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 -
Replying to @bnielson01 @coponder and
I doubt most things are tractably predictable. Jeff Hawkins is on the wrong track when he guess the brain's main function is prediction.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'd love to hear more on what you think the brain's main function is! The thing is, what you (and Lulie and Deutsch) are saying is not incompatible with the brain being built on tiny prediction events - those prediction events don't have to be about *reality* though.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
They're predictions about future input to our bodies, which can be totally unrelated to reality. “If our perceptual systems evolved by natural selection, then the probability that we see reality as it actually is, in any way, is zero. Precisely zero,” said Donald Hoffman."
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.