Re: 'Mind Space' metaphor - relation between Symbolic, Bayesian and Analogical inference
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 2:13 AM, marc.geddes wrote: > > I think Penrose is nonsense if taken literally, he's looking at the > wrong level of organization, mind has got nothing to do with > fundamental physics directly I think. But speaking *metaphorically* > it can lead to good ideas. So speaking metaphorically only, > information integration in the mind (categorization) could be said to > be analogous to space-time curvature. And then the probabilities are > analogous to the apparent forces. But I'll stick to comp I think. > > I imagine it much like fishing. There is a deep sea of ideas on top of which my mind floats. I cast out a line with a particular hook/bait and troll through the idea space and reel-in those that "fit" the hook. Sometimes I don't have enough details, so I get back an incomplete result. Other times I may not have the patience (enough fishing line) to reach deeply enough to find the perfect match. Some ideas are ideal, some work well enough. I'm not sure if that was metaphorically or allegorical or simply an analogy. :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: 'Mind Space' metaphor - relation between Symbolic, Bayesian and Analogical inference
On Dec 31 2009, 5:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > You may be right. But it is still an open problem to just define > probability (except the probability one) in the mechanist settting. > Rich metaphor, but a promise for a lot of work, to make this precise > enough in the mechanist frame. It would mean that not only we have a > measure (and a linear base of observable/operators) but also a richer > differential structure. Who knows? You may try to be more precise, > even without taking the mechanist constraint into consideration. Yes. I'm looking for an applied logic of uncertainty associated with sets or categories. Can you name such a logic? > > With non-mechanism, you may consider Penrose's (very speculative) idea > that mind reduces the wave by being related to gravitation (space-time > curve). Not sure it makes really sense, but then, with non-comp, we > may try ... everything. > > It seems obvious to me that Bayes is a particular case of inference. > There are *many* others. > > Bruno I think Penrose is nonsense if taken literally, he's looking at the wrong level of organization, mind has got nothing to do with fundamental physics directly I think. But speaking *metaphorically* it can lead to good ideas. So speaking metaphorically only, information integration in the mind (categorization) could be said to be analogous to space-time curvature. And then the probabilities are analogous to the apparent forces. But I'll stick to comp I think. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: 'Mind Space' metaphor - relation between Symbolic, Bayesian and Analogical inference
Dear Marc, you emerged from the conventional figment of a 'physical world' view and elevated into the concept of "mind" (what I don't know where, what and how to define...) - anyway, to think in mental terms instead of the conventional physical figments. Then you use the complacent terms of the abandoned physical sciences to include into your better ideas. The 'definitely' human restrictions into the 'non-restricted' totality. Space, objects, human logics, (in first line: a Bayesian probability as we, humans, imagine how the 'next' will arrive in an unlimited openness) even 'geometry of mind', the forces, - all the human restrictions into the unlimited in which we humans are only a tiny part? I think your ideas are acceptable as a step forward from the conventional (reductionistic) human thinking, but I would see a more distinct 'possibility' of free ways, which - alas - are not yet available, not even the words are there to apply when going into them. (The worst thing is a reference to 'cognitive science' which established this unknowable domain as fully explained (as of today) in our so far learned (misunderstood?)physical/physiologica/behavioral figments and their conventional explanations.) Please, excuse my critical (negative?) attitude without proposing a better mousetrap. I developed my 'scientific agnosticism' pertinent to the totality (wholeness) of which we (in our epistemic enrichment) so far got hold of a tiny fraction and feel 'so smart'. I jumped onto your idea: it is a try in the right direction and I am for every step forward. Please think about it, your startup is commendable. Happy 2010 John M On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 5:51 AM, marc.geddes wrote: > I came up with this metaphor which hopefully indicates the > relationship between the three main types of inference (Symbolic, > Bayesian and Analogical). > > --- > > Picture a mind as a space, and 'the laws of mind' are analogous to the > principles of cognitive science. > > Now in this 'mind space' picture the 'mind objects' - I suggest these > are logical predicates - symbolic representions of real objects. How > do these 'mind objects' interact? I suggest picturing 'mind forces' > as analogous to the 'strengths of relationships' between the mind > objects (predicates or variables) so 'mind forces' are probability > distributions. But what about the background geometry of mind space? > I suggest picturing 'curvatures' in the geometry of mind space as > analogous to concepts (categories or analogies). > > Then Symbolic logic is the laws governing the mind objects (rules for > manipulating predicates). Bayes (Probability Theory) is the laws > govering the mind forces (rules about probability distributions), and > Analogical inference (categorizaton) is the laws governing the > geometry of mind space itself (concept learning and manipulation). > > --- > > If my metaphor is valid, the radical implication is that analogical > inference is the true foundation of logic, and Bayes is merely a > special case of it. Why? Consider that *apparent* Newtonian forces > operating across physical space are actually just special cases of > curvatures in the geometry of space-time itself. What I'm suggesting > is *exactly* analogous to that physical picture. I'm suggesting that > *apparent* probabilistic operations in mind space are actually just > special cases of 'curvatures' in the 'geometry' of mind space > (categorization and analogy formation). > > --- > > The question of course is whether my metaphor is valid. I'm very > confident, but I could be wrong. Comments or thoughts welcome. > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: 'Mind Space' metaphor - relation between Symbolic, Bayesian and Analogical inference
You may be right. But it is still an open problem to just define probability (except the probability one) in the mechanist settting. Rich metaphor, but a promise for a lot of work, to make this precise enough in the mechanist frame. It would mean that not only we have a measure (and a linear base of observable/operators) but also a richer differential structure. Who knows? You may try to be more precise, even without taking the mechanist constraint into consideration. With non-mechanism, you may consider Penrose's (very speculative) idea that mind reduces the wave by being related to gravitation (space-time curve). Not sure it makes really sense, but then, with non-comp, we may try ... everything. It seems obvious to me that Bayes is a particular case of inference. There are *many* others. Bruno On 30 Dec 2009, at 11:51, marc.geddes wrote: > I came up with this metaphor which hopefully indicates the > relationship between the three main types of inference (Symbolic, > Bayesian and Analogical). > > --- > > Picture a mind as a space, and 'the laws of mind' are analogous to the > principles of cognitive science. > > Now in this 'mind space' picture the 'mind objects' - I suggest these > are logical predicates - symbolic representions of real objects. How > do these 'mind objects' interact? I suggest picturing 'mind forces' > as analogous to the 'strengths of relationships' between the mind > objects (predicates or variables) so 'mind forces' are probability > distributions. But what about the background geometry of mind space? > I suggest picturing 'curvatures' in the geometry of mind space as > analogous to concepts (categories or analogies). > > Then Symbolic logic is the laws governing the mind objects (rules for > manipulating predicates). Bayes (Probability Theory) is the laws > govering the mind forces (rules about probability distributions), and > Analogical inference (categorizaton) is the laws governing the > geometry of mind space itself (concept learning and manipulation). > > --- > > If my metaphor is valid, the radical implication is that analogical > inference is the true foundation of logic, and Bayes is merely a > special case of it. Why? Consider that *apparent* Newtonian forces > operating across physical space are actually just special cases of > curvatures in the geometry of space-time itself. What I'm suggesting > is *exactly* analogous to that physical picture. I'm suggesting that > *apparent* probabilistic operations in mind space are actually just > special cases of 'curvatures' in the 'geometry' of mind space > (categorization and analogy formation). > > --- > > The question of course is whether my metaphor is valid. I'm very > confident, but I could be wrong. Comments or thoughts welcome. > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > . > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
'Mind Space' metaphor - relation between Symbolic, Bayesian and Analogical inference
I came up with this metaphor which hopefully indicates the relationship between the three main types of inference (Symbolic, Bayesian and Analogical). --- Picture a mind as a space, and 'the laws of mind' are analogous to the principles of cognitive science. Now in this 'mind space' picture the 'mind objects' - I suggest these are logical predicates - symbolic representions of real objects. How do these 'mind objects' interact? I suggest picturing 'mind forces' as analogous to the 'strengths of relationships' between the mind objects (predicates or variables) so 'mind forces' are probability distributions. But what about the background geometry of mind space? I suggest picturing 'curvatures' in the geometry of mind space as analogous to concepts (categories or analogies). Then Symbolic logic is the laws governing the mind objects (rules for manipulating predicates). Bayes (Probability Theory) is the laws govering the mind forces (rules about probability distributions), and Analogical inference (categorizaton) is the laws governing the geometry of mind space itself (concept learning and manipulation). --- If my metaphor is valid, the radical implication is that analogical inference is the true foundation of logic, and Bayes is merely a special case of it. Why? Consider that *apparent* Newtonian forces operating across physical space are actually just special cases of curvatures in the geometry of space-time itself. What I'm suggesting is *exactly* analogous to that physical picture. I'm suggesting that *apparent* probabilistic operations in mind space are actually just special cases of 'curvatures' in the 'geometry' of mind space (categorization and analogy formation). --- The question of course is whether my metaphor is valid. I'm very confident, but I could be wrong. Comments or thoughts welcome. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
