Sergio, I was trying to politely make some personal criticisms -as they related to your theories- as the first step in deciding how to proceed to consider your ideas in the future. While I can understand how you might react to my criticisms in this way, I am not particularly impressed with your response.
Jim Bromer On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Sergio Pissanetzky <[email protected] > wrote: > ** ** > > Adam,**** > > ** ** > > Thanks a lot. You are right on target. In the following weeks or months I > will be studying Karl Friston's work. He is a theoretical neuroscientist > interested in that gray area between Physics and Neuroscience, and > therefore of direct interest to me. Here is a quote from a paper by > Daunizeau et. al., speaking about and in the context of Friston's seminal > work:**** > > ** ** > > "...the functional role played by any brain component (e.g., cortical > area, sub-area, neuronal population or neuron) is defined largely by its > connections ... In other terms, function emerges from the flow of > information among brain areas ... effective connectivity refers to causal > effects, i.e., the directed influence that system elements exert on each > other (see Friston et al. 2007a for a comprehensive discussion)."**** > > ** ** > > This is, precisely, the kind of things that I can predict for the brain. > Predictions that I have made, and published, are nearly identical to > Friston's, except that mine came from Physics and his came from > observation. Agreement between experiment and prediction is a strong > confirmation of both. When it is inter-disciplinary, it becomes > fundamental. **** > > ** ** > > I note that Friston has recognized the role of causality, of the flow of > information, the principle of free energy for action and perception, of > active inference, in the brain. He uses causal models to infer architecture > of the brain. I have been trying to draw conclusions from Physics about > these same things, and so far, it seems to me, I have not been too far. He > also uses Bayesian statistical methods, which I don't agree with, because > Bayes was a human and I want to know what in his brain made it possible for > him to develop such a wonderful theory, not the theory itself. But Friston > uses Bayesian methods because he doesn't know about my work, the entropy > principle, or the inference that follows. In the interest of science, I > think it would be important for him to know. Do you know him, can you > introduce me to him? **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Jim,**** > > ** ** > > So far, I have only made four claims, one corollary, and two conjectures. > They are listed in Section 2 of my Complexity paper. I also apply the four > fundamental principles of nature, causality, self-organization (or > symmetry), least-action, and entropy (or 2nd. law of Thermodynamics). These > are discussed some more in my home page <http://www.scicontrols.com/>. I > believe this pretty much takes care of all of Physics. If you know any law > or experiment that contradicts my assumptions, the correct action would be > for you to publish a paper explaining your views and let the scientific > community decide. Note that in Physics, one single experiment that > contradicts a theory may mean the collapse of the entire theory. Or, more > usually, the emergence of a new theory of which the old one is a particular > case. **** > > ** ** > > You ask me to prove all I say before saying it. You should tell the same > to the AGI people. AI started 60 years ago, under the assumption that > intelligence will be conquered by computers. With no proof. So they devoted > themselves to writing programs. Sixty years later, AGI emerges, and is > still using the same assumption. With no proof. You post your study of an > algorithm on an AGI blog. Why would you do that? Because you think the > study is a contribution to AGI. There is no proof of that. Science doesn't > work like that. There is a thing called scientific discourse, where > scientists communicate freely about their ideas. You are essentially > telling me to but off because you seem to dislike my conclusions, or else. > I can't hide in a hole, sorry. **** > > ** ** > > Isn't it time to try something different? Please, be patient, and keep > trying to understand what I am saying. I know it is not easy and I > appreciate your efforts to remain calm. If it is any consolation, it was > very difficult for me too, back in 2005. **** > > ** ** > > I believe the outcome of my post - Adam telling us about Friston - > overrides everything else you've said. Had I not advanced my hypotheses > about the brain, this contact with Adam would not have been established. > You would have undermined my chance to participate in our quest for > understanding what we are, and the chance of Science to advance one more > step ahead. **** > > ** ** > > Sergio.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Adam Safron [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:56 AM > > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Uncertainty, causality, entropy, self-organization, > and Schroedinger's cat.**** > > ** ** > > 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/303/18883996-f0d58d57>| > 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
