> On Aug 29, 6:41 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> marc.geddes wrote:
>>> On Aug 29, 5:30 am, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>> marc.geddes wrote:
>>> *Before* you can even begin to assign probabilities to anything, you
>>> first need to form symbolic representations of the things you are
>>> talking about; see Knowledge Representation:
>>> This is where categories come in – to represent knowledge you have to
>>> group raw sensory data into different categories, this is a
>>> prerequisite to any sort of ‘degrees of belief’, which shows that
>>> probabilities are not as important as knowledge representation. In
>>> fact knowledge representation is actually doing most of the work in
>>> science, and Bayesian ‘degrees of belief’ are secondary.
>> I have no problem with that. Certainly you form propositions
>> (representations of knowledge) before you can worry your degree of
>> belief in them. But you started with the assertion that you were going
>> to "destroy Bayesian reasoning" and since Bayes=reductionism this was
>> going to destroy reductionism. Now, you've settled down to saying that
>> forming categories is prior to Bayesian reasoning. People that post
>> emails with outlandish assertions simply to stir up responses are called
> There are many logicians who think that Bayesian inference can serve
> as the entire foundation of rationality and is the most powerful form
> of reasoning possible (the rationalist ideal).
Cox showed it is a rational ideal for updating one's beliefs based on
new evidence. Has anyone shown that analogical reasoning is optimum in
> What I'm 'destroying'
> is that claim. And I've done that. But of course Bayes is still very
> useful and powerful.
>>> Since Bohm's views are non-reductionist and still perfectly
>>> consistent, this casts serious doubt on the entire reductionist world-
>>> view on which Bayesian reasoning is based.
>> I don't know why the mere existence of some consistent holistic math
>> model - which cannot account for observed particle production - should
>> count as evidence against a reductionist world view.
> Because if the reductionist world-view is the correct one, the non-
> reductionist world view should have serious inconsistencies, the fact
> that there's not yet a conclusive technical rebuttal of Bohm counts as
> evidence against reductionism.
What's a technical rebuttal if particle production isn't?? Failure to
predict what is observed is usually considered a severe defect in physics.
Also, note that there is no reason that there couldn't be both holistic
and reductionist accounts of the same thing.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at