6 ms·

Epistemology 101. Statistical pattern matching has no epistemological truth beyond a correspondence of linguistic statistics. It is merely statistical probabil

Epistemology 101. Statistical pattern matching has no epistemological truth beyond a correspondence of linguistic statistics. It is merely statistical probability, which hardly can be classified as an epistemological basis. If we pretend for a moment it is, the ontologies formed are most certainly peculiar, and we can expect ideologies that emerge out of the ontologies are problematic.

williamcotton 3y ago
Beyesians accept an epistemological foundation of statistical priors updated by experience. Predictive processing is well established in the neuroscience community. Capital T Truth is really of very little interest to anyone outside of faith-based epistemology like religion.
- foolrush 3y ago
  The issue is that the definition of “statistics” is anchored in a magnitude of frequency of glyphs. The “information” is fabricated in this regard, pulled up out of the ether, and by decree christened as “meaning”. Numbers carry no meaning, nor do the magnitudes arbitrarily assigned to meaning. The map is not the territory.
  - stevenhuang 3y ago
    Have you heard of information theory? Numbers can mean anything. A multitude of numbers as voltage potentials and ion gradients sufficiently describe your brain. Biology manifests this arrangement as a brain, without which this arrangement would also be similarly meaningless. Your argument against deriving meaning from statistics completely ignores that the brain also works this way.
    - 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 ago
        The 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 ago
        My 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 ago
        Some form of prediction being used by the higher-level neurons doesn't make the brain a prediction engine.
        naasking 3y ago
        I'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.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > The “information” is fabricated in this regard, pulled up out of the ether, and by decree christened as “meaning”. No, not fabricated, but inferred from a structured corpus of information generated by other semantic processes (humans). > Numbers carry no meaning, nor do the magnitudes arbitrarily assigned to meaning. Prove it. > The map is not the territory. Except if the territory is information, in which case the map is literally the territory. Knowledge is information, is it not?
- discreteevent 3y ago
  Physicists are very interested in capital T Truth. They work with explanations not just statistical priors.
  - dS0rrow 3y ago
    This talk by Feynman is slightly related: https://youtu.be/obCjODeoLVw https://youtu.be/obCjODeoLVw
stevenhuang 3y ago
Statical pattern matching is how human brains work.
naasking 3y ago
> Epistemology 101. Statistical pattern matching has no epistemological truth beyond a correspondence of linguistic statistics. It is merely statistical Your belief in epistemic truth is a statistical inference from your perception of apparently reliable causality. How do you ground this inductive inference? Your attempt to appeal to epistemology 101 with a casual dismissal as "mere statistical probability" covers this deep, gaping maw. Bayesian inference reduces to classical logic when all probabilities are pinned to 0 and 1, but in what circumstances can we actually demonstrably infer absolute certainty? None that I can think of, except one's own existence.
- foolrush 3y ago
  I did not lay claim to epistemic truth. I referenced epistemology. That is, there are a plurality of epistemologies, all of which have their own epistemic truth mechanics. So I would agree with you, entirely! I was merely pointing out that statistical correlation alone affords no epistemological basis.

williamcotton 3y ago

Beyesians accept an epistemological foundation of statistical priors updated by experience. Predictive processing is well established in the neuroscience community. Capital T Truth is really of very little interest to anyone outside of faith-based epistemology like religion.

foolrush 3y ago
The issue is that the definition of “statistics” is anchored in a magnitude of frequency of glyphs. The “information” is fabricated in this regard, pulled up out of the ether, and by decree christened as “meaning”. Numbers carry no meaning, nor do the magnitudes arbitrarily assigned to meaning. The map is not the territory.
- stevenhuang 3y ago
  Have you heard of information theory? Numbers can mean anything. A multitude of numbers as voltage potentials and ion gradients sufficiently describe your brain. Biology manifests this arrangement as a brain, without which this arrangement would also be similarly meaningless. Your argument against deriving meaning from statistics completely ignores that the brain also works this way.
  - 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        My 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 ago
        Some form of prediction being used by the higher-level neurons doesn't make the brain a prediction engine.
        naasking 3y ago
        I'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.
- naasking 3y ago
  > The “information” is fabricated in this regard, pulled up out of the ether, and by decree christened as “meaning”. No, not fabricated, but inferred from a structured corpus of information generated by other semantic processes (humans). > Numbers carry no meaning, nor do the magnitudes arbitrarily assigned to meaning. Prove it. > The map is not the territory. Except if the territory is information, in which case the map is literally the territory. Knowledge is information, is it not?
discreteevent 3y ago
Physicists are very interested in capital T Truth. They work with explanations not just statistical priors.
- dS0rrow 3y ago
  This talk by Feynman is slightly related: https://youtu.be/obCjODeoLVw https://youtu.be/obCjODeoLVw

stevenhuang 3y ago

Statical pattern matching is how human brains work.

naasking 3y ago

> Epistemology 101. Statistical pattern matching has no epistemological truth beyond a correspondence of linguistic statistics. It is merely statistical Your belief in epistemic truth is a statistical inference from your perception of apparently reliable causality. How do you ground this inductive inference? Your attempt to appeal to epistemology 101 with a casual dismissal as "mere statistical probability" covers this deep, gaping maw. Bayesian inference reduces to classical logic when all probabilities are pinned to 0 and 1, but in what circumstances can we actually demonstrably infer absolute certainty? None that I can think of, except one's own existence.

foolrush 3y ago
I did not lay claim to epistemic truth. I referenced epistemology. That is, there are a plurality of epistemologies, all of which have their own epistemic truth mechanics. So I would agree with you, entirely! I was merely pointing out that statistical correlation alone affords no epistemological basis.