Ironic, yes, and it shows how dependent Bayes methods are on priors. Pick bad priors (and that can even involve assigning equal probability to all unknowns) and with a bit of bad luck you can end up in a self-confirming loop. But usually it works.
My Bayesian spam detector (actually Microsoft's which is really stupid in the information it uses, and keeps blocking people on the Peirce list). John -----Original Message----- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] Sent: March 26, 2015 7:25 PM To: Danko Nikolic Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Bayes and abduction PS. I know how to spell Bayes but my autospellbot, which is very likely a Bayesbot, thinks that a very unlikely sequence of letters. Ironic, no? Jon http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > > Danko, List, > > Bates' Rule is a mathematical theorem, that is, a deductive transformation > that can at best preserve the information in the data. Thus it is explicative > where abduction and induction are ampliative. > > This is an old controversy that Peirce had with, I think it was the > Neyman-Pearson school of thought? > > There used to be a lot of literature and some understanding of this > point among AI folk, but that may be forgotten now. That happens > periodically . > > Regards, > > Jon > > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > >> On Mar 26, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Danko Nikolic <danko.niko...@googlemail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Dear, >> >> There was one more question that bugged me while writing the paper on >> practopoiesis: There has been a lot of work on Bayesian inference in the >> brain. So, my fear was that people who worked on Bayesian aspects of brain >> computation would argue that all the issues regarding logical abduction have >> been addressed through Bayesian-related work. >> >> First, I have to say that my fear was not really grounded and for a strange >> reason. It turned out that all the experts on Bayesian inference who I >> talked to have never heard of logical abduction. That was kind of sad, but >> still did not solve the problem. >> >> My intuition is that abduction is much more than Bayesian inference, but I >> have hard time defending this stance. >> >> Can anybody tell me more about that relation? If one shows that a neural >> circuit performs Bayesian inference, has it been automatically shown that >> the circuit can perform logical abduction? I guess not. But I would like to >> know more about that. >> >> The way I treated the issue in the paper was that I discussed primarily >> abduction and then briefly mentioned Bayes at the end as "related". I am not >> sure whether I could have done a better job. >> >> Thank you very much. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Danko >> >> -- >> Prof. Dr. Danko Nikolić >> >> Web: >> http://www.danko-nikolic.com >> >> Mail address 1: >> Department of Neurophysiology >> Max Planck Institut for Brain Research Deutschordenstr. 46 >> 60528 Frankfurt am Main >> GERMANY >> >> Mail address 2: >> Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies Wolfgang Goethe University >> Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1 >> 60433 Frankfurt am Main >> GERMANY >> >> ---------------------------- >> Office: (..49-69) 96769-736 >> Lab: (..49-69) 96769-209 >> Fax: (..49-69) 96769-327 >> danko.niko...@gmail.com >> ---------------------------- >>
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
