11 ms·

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 ou

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?

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?