YKY
1) I agree that the brain's probabilistic reasoning does not involve
high-precision calculations, but rather rough heuristic estimations
2) Of course, the brain has a LOT of stuff going on internally that is
not accessible to consciousness.... In very many ways our unconscious
brains are smarter and more accurate than our conscious brains. For
example, when I serve in tennis, my brain seems to know what angle to
hold each part of my arm at, yet my conscious mind does not have
access to this information. Probabilities (implicitly) calculated
during cognition may have roughly the same status as these angles
(implicitly) calculated during motor control.
-- Ben
On 8/3/06, Yan King Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think Richard's point is interesting.
I think the brain probably does NOT do implicit probabilities, at least not
with high precisions. If it does, I see no reason why such information is
not available to consciousness.
The brain probably performs inference using categories like "some", "most",
"a few", or "likely", "highly likely", etc. Such categories may be regarded
as probabilities with extremely low precision (like 1-2 bits).
So, the distinction between Richard's categorical inference and numerical
inference is one of precision.
Now the question is, does using categories improve performance greatly? How
much resource can we free up by using 1-2 bit precision instead of floating
points?
YKY ________________________________
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription, please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
