Oh! Thank you. I just read it and liked it. Basically, the field did not
settle down on a single answer to the question. There are multiple ways
how this relation could be conceived.
I liked very much the concluding paragraph leaving open even the
possibility that the two are covering different types of "revisions of
beliefs".
Now I feel better about myself not being able to figure out the exact
relation.
Danko
On 26/03/15 18:58, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
Hello Danko,
See the following article on abduction, and especially section 4 that provides
a comparison between abduction and Bayesian models of inference.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/#AbdVerBayConThe
Note that the author does provide some explanation of Peirce's account of
abduction, but that he very quickly draws parallels between Peirce's account
and what has come to be called inference to the best explanation in analytic
tradition of 20th century philosophy. Some who work on Peirce's account of
abduction think the differences are more instructive than the similarities.
--Jeff
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
________________________________________
From: Danko Nikolic [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Bayes and abduction
Dear,
There was one more question that bugged me while writing the paper on
practopoiesis: There has been a lot of work on Bayesian inference in the
brain. So, my fear was that people who worked on Bayesian aspects of
brain computation would argue that all the issues regarding logical
abduction have been addressed through Bayesian-related work.
First, I have to say that my fear was not really grounded and for a
strange reason. It turned out that all the experts on Bayesian inference
who I talked to have never heard of logical abduction. That was kind of
sad, but still did not solve the problem.
My intuition is that abduction is much more than Bayesian inference, but
I have hard time defending this stance.
Can anybody tell me more about that relation? If one shows that a neural
circuit performs Bayesian inference, has it been automatically shown
that the circuit can perform logical abduction? I guess not. But I would
like to know more about that.
The way I treated the issue in the paper was that I discussed primarily
abduction and then briefly mentioned Bayes at the end as "related". I am
not sure whether I could have done a better job.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Danko
--
Prof. Dr. Danko Nikolić
Web:
http://www.danko-nikolic.com
Mail address 1:
Department of Neurophysiology
Max Planck Institut for Brain Research
Deutschordenstr. 46
60528 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
Mail address 2:
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
Wolfgang Goethe University
Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1
60433 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
----------------------------
Office: (..49-69) 96769-736
Lab: (..49-69) 96769-209
Fax: (..49-69) 96769-327
[email protected]
----------------------------
--
Prof. Dr. Danko Nikolić
Web:
http://www.danko-nikolic.com
Mail address 1:
Department of Neurophysiology
Max Planck Institut for Brain Research
Deutschordenstr. 46
60528 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
Mail address 2:
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
Wolfgang Goethe University
Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1
60433 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
----------------------------
Office: (..49-69) 96769-736
Lab: (..49-69) 96769-209
Fax: (..49-69) 96769-327
[email protected]
----------------------------
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
