Although I think that representations can be defined at a computational level, we often work with algorithmic-level definitions as @ProfData has explained. In other words, representations are part of the model and need to be specified algorithmically.
-
-
Replying to @twitemp1 @marcolin91 and
Ah I may have misunderstood Brad. That seems reasonable as what counts at the algorithmic level as a representation
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @JoeAusterweil @twitemp1 and
If I understand the integral vs separable from your 2010 paper, I do believe it is very interesting though, and imo can be seen as an embedded algorithmic-computational relation that effectively 'closes' the representational process, if one views systems as embedding sub-systems
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @marcolin91 @JoeAusterweil and
Particularly interesting (imo), is that the discussion often is about grounding (Reps) towards implementation within a system, but what about grounding the other way around towards computational? To adaptively situate/couple, one must establish the comp problem/hypothesis space
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @marcolin91 @JoeAusterweil and
To extend the speculaiton a bit more explicitly: It suggests embedded 'Marrian hierarchies' that point to a key qualifier for an agent possessing representations {R}: to possess a systematicity, a good regulator if you will, of the set of {R} and the processes of utilising them
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @marcolin91 @JoeAusterweil and
No one's going to like this, but I don't think it makes sense to talk of representations at the computational level because there is no processing there. It's the level of problem description. Matt Jones and I talk about that in our BBS paper from several years ago.
3 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @ProfData @JoeAusterweil and
I'll check the awesome sounding bayesian enlightenment! But I was just trying to build bridges in conversation. How to optimally leverage the AlgoBridges, needs imo exploring the boundaries & diversity of algorithmic space, and how relations to the other levels change therein
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @marcolin91 @ProfData and
It's this!
Jones, M. & Love, B. C. (2011). Bayesian Fundamentalism or Enlightenment? On the Explanatory Status and Theoretical Contributions of Bayesian Models of Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10003134 …
PDF: http://bradlove.org/papers/JonesLove2011all.pdf …1 reply 2 retweets 6 likes -
Thank you will read this today!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @marcolin91 @ProfData and
IMHO the field actually self-corrected as a reaction to this and other papers calling out the fundamentalists. A nice thought that slowly but surely we find better ways to do, at least cognitive, science.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
[From what I know other subfields have deeper issues than this that involve more seriousness violations of the scientific method and misconduct.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm a terrible human.]
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @marcolin91 and
Yeah, different types of models make different types of claims and should be evaluated on different types of data, so it’s important to be clear.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.