Adam, My point was not that he should not talk about this but that if he is not a neural scientist then how can he be absolutely certain that he is right about these principles? There is a difference, for example, between saying that there is evidence that the mind uses Bayesian Reasoning and acting as if you knew with absolute certainty that this is the principle by which all pre-frontal reasoning takes place.
My question was a personal one. It is like, how are you (Adam) -certain- that the link you provided us is the key to answering the question I was asking Sergio. Your answer would be that you were not certain of that, which is exactly why you used the word "may" in your comment. I would not ask you such a question because you qualified your remark with the word "may". I am not able to access Professor Friston's papers but I will look for them another way when I get some time. Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Adam Safron <[email protected]> wrote: > You have already acknowledged the fact that the brain uses a lot of energy > so why would you continue to insist that you know exactly how the brain > acts to conserve energy without any experience in the field of neural > science? > > > Karl Friston's work may be relevant to this discussion: > http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~karl/#_Free-energy_principle > > Best, > -Adam > > On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:49 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sergio, > I am making an effort to try to understand what you are saying. I am also > trying to avoid making personal attacks. However, I have major problems > when someone claims that he has -the answer- when he does not have -the > proof-. So I have been making more personal criticisms about your attitude > about your own theory, not to to win the argument or to personally trounce > you, but to see if you are able to acknowledge that you cannot possibly be > certain about your theory without actually making it do what you say it can > do. Once you acknowledge some serious uncertainty about the theory, or I > come to the conclusion that you are unable to do that, I want to try to > figure out what your theory is about. > > I did not understand this at first, but now I think that you are saying > that the response a person makes in situations where some uncertainty > exist, will be an invariant given those situations. Is that right or is it > wrong? Regardless of the knowledge someone has about what might follow, > the response that a person chooses in the face of uncertainty is one in > which the entropy of the information that the person has about the > situation will be minimized so that the useful information is retained. Is > this essentially right? It should be obvious that this is going to be an > imperfect process given that some situations are more complicated than > others. Isn't that right? > > Is it possible that your theory is only a > physical-reaction-of-the-brain response to a problem of overwhelming > uncertainty and therefore not a sound theory derived from insight? > > Two more criticisms. > One is that you are choosing some of the laws of physics while ignoring > others and then claiming that these laws that you have chosen explain how > the brain works. The brain is obviously a complicated organ, so how can > you claim that your choice of abstractions from physics can explain it? > > Secondly. We learn from previous experiences. We learn that we do have > choices. And we learn that many of the choices we have can be made without > immediately threatening our survival. Why aren't my choices based on > insight (right or wrong)? Knowledge that is only derived from the essence > of an abstract system is usually pretty frail. Isn't it possible that the > mind is physical organ capable of dealing with insight and therefore > capable of reacting in ways that are less efficient than your theory is > suggesting. You have already acknowledged the fact that the brain uses a > lot of energy so why would you continue to insist that you know exactly how > the brain acts to conserve energy without any experience in the field of > neural science? (I am not saying that we must not talk about such things, > I am only saying that we cannot honestly claim that our knowledge of the > basics of neural science are absolutely correct.) > > Jim Bromer > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/9673850-85fb8305> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
