Jeremy, List,
A few spare moments this morning, so I'll just try to
give my personal take on Peirce's objective idealism.
I remember writing an explication of this this some time back --
searching tells me it was probably this gloss on the canonical
paragraph from Peirce that I added to the
Danko, List,
On mobile and not able to read your paper right now, so maybe you already
mentioned this, but I recall W.S. McCulloch wrote something about “the
reticular formation that marshals our abductions” and he was quite up on Peirce
early on.
Regards,
Jon
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
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
That's ''Embodiments of Mind''.
Jon
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:52 PM, Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net wrote:
Danko,
Check the papers collected in his ''Embodied Mind''. That's probably where I
read it.
Jon
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
On Mar 26, 2015, at
Oh! Thank you. I just read it and liked it. Basically, the field did not
settle down on a single answer to the question. There are multiple ways
how this relation could be conceived.
I liked very much the concluding paragraph leaving open even the
possibility that the two are covering
You're welcome, Danko.
I confess that I know little about cybernetics, Bayesian probability,
etc. - I don't have strong opinions about them. If I were to pick
something Bayesian in spirit that might help with abductive inference,
it would be some notion of subjective priors about feasibility
I learned Bayesian methods in my statistics courses and was taught to be
skeptical of the magical powers that some attributed to them. Some of my
professors knew about Peirce's distinction between abduction and induction and
some did not, but either way they knew you can't get inductive
Thank you for that.
Danko
On 26/03/15 20:03, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
Hello,
Or see: http://vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/mcculloch_whats-in-the-brain.pdf
--Jeff
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
From: Jon
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
Dear members of Peirce list,
I would like to bring to your attention the upcoming theoretical
paper in Journal of Theoretical Biology entitled Practopoiesis: Or how
life fosters a mind. The paper proposes neurophysiological/cybernetic account
of
abductive reasoning, as introduced by Peirce.
10 matches
Mail list logo
