> You have already acknowledged the fact that the brain uses a lot of energy so > why would you continue to insist that you know exactly how the brain acts to > conserve energy without any experience in the field of neural science?
Karl Friston's work may be relevant to this discussion: http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~karl/#_Free-energy_principle Best, -Adam On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:49 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > Sergio, > I am making an effort to try to understand what you are saying. I am also > trying to avoid making personal attacks. However, I have major problems when > someone claims that he has -the answer- when he does not have -the proof-. > So I have been making more personal criticisms about your attitude about your > own theory, not to to win the argument or to personally trounce you, but to > see if you are able to acknowledge that you cannot possibly be certain about > your theory without actually making it do what you say it can do. Once you > acknowledge some serious uncertainty about the theory, or I come to the > conclusion that you are unable to do that, I want to try to figure out what > your theory is about. > > I did not understand this at first, but now I think that you are saying that > the response a person makes in situations where some uncertainty exist, will > be an invariant given those situations. Is that right or is it wrong? > Regardless of the knowledge someone has about what might follow, the response > that a person chooses in the face of uncertainty is one in which the entropy > of the information that the person has about the situation will be minimized > so that the useful information is retained. Is this essentially right? It > should be obvious that this is going to be an imperfect process given that > some situations are more complicated than others. Isn't that right? > > Is it possible that your theory is only a physical-reaction-of-the-brain > response to a problem of overwhelming uncertainty and therefore not a sound > theory derived from insight? > > Two more criticisms. > One is that you are choosing some of the laws of physics while ignoring > others and then claiming that these laws that you have chosen explain how the > brain works. The brain is obviously a complicated organ, so how can you > claim that your choice of abstractions from physics can explain it? > > Secondly. We learn from previous experiences. We learn that we do have > choices. And we learn that many of the choices we have can be made without > immediately threatening our survival. Why aren't my choices based on insight > (right or wrong)? Knowledge that is only derived from the essence of an > abstract system is usually pretty frail. Isn't it possible that the mind is > physical organ capable of dealing with insight and therefore capable of > reacting in ways that are less efficient than your theory is suggesting. You > have already acknowledged the fact that the brain uses a lot of energy so why > would you continue to insist that you know exactly how the brain acts to > conserve energy without any experience in the field of neural science? (I am > not saying that we must not talk about such things, I am only saying that we > cannot honestly claim that our knowledge of the basics of neural science are > absolutely correct.) > > Jim Bromer > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
