Jim, That is precisely why I said "may." If there are any papers by Friston that look particularly interesting to you but difficult to obtain, let me know and I may be able to provide a copy.
-A On Aug 15, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 | Modify Your Subscription > > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
