3 ms·
> Have you heard of information theory? > Your argument against deriving meaning from statistics completely ignores that the brain also works this way. The br
by dS0rrow 3y ago
> Have you heard of information theory?
> Your argument against deriving meaning from statistics completely ignores that the brain also works this way.
The brain is not predicting it's compressing.
- stevenhuang 3y agoThe current prevailing theory in neuroscience is in fact the brain is a prediction engine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding
- foolrush 3y ago[flagged]
- stevenhuang 3y agoMy former claim is that everything in the natural world can be reduced to statistics, so saying meaning cannot be derived "because statistics" is a very poor argument. The second is a theory for the underlying mechanisms of the brain. I'm sorry you don't understand.
- naasking 3y ago> The brain is not predicting it's compressing Compression requires prediction, therefore your brain requires prediction.
- dS0rrow 3y agoSome form of prediction being used by the higher-level neurons doesn't make the brain a prediction engine.
- naasking 3y agoI'm not sure who claimed the brain was a "predictive engine" or what that means exactly. The OP specifically referenced predictive coding which describes precisely what is meant, and has empirical support. If you meant this as a comparison to machine learning, then a predictive coding model closely matches.