Author Topic: The latest from SlateStarCodex  (Read 3154 times)

Q. G. Pennyworth

  • Slimy Thing Who
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 82807
  • QUEEN BITCH OF FLYERS
    • View Profile
Re: The latest from SlateStarCodex
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2016, 05:48:13 pm »
Updating.

Interesting article about Bayes and neuroscience.  I like how he presents the findings, but still comes away with questions.  The hypothesis makes sense, but that doesn't mean it's right.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/12/its-bayes-all-the-way-up/

I didn't read it all the way through, but I can tell you that neuroscience-wise this guy reads like a stoner rambling about quantum mechanics with a very shaky baseline comprehension of what that means.

Is the top-down/bottom-up metaphor an okay one to use as a way of describing more complicated systems that are actually functioning, or is there something about it that's so fundamentally fucked that looking through that lens is going to lead me to idiot conclusions? Because I like it as a non-literal model, but I don't want to absorb it if it's going to make me look like an idiot.
Overheating Pheremone Pustule of Last Saturday's Jiggle Fun| _xgeWireToEvent: Unknown extension 131, this should never happen.

Don't fucking judge me, I've got tentacles for a face.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: The latest from SlateStarCodex
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2016, 06:58:01 pm »
Updating.

Interesting article about Bayes and neuroscience.  I like how he presents the findings, but still comes away with questions.  The hypothesis makes sense, but that doesn't mean it's right.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/12/its-bayes-all-the-way-up/

I didn't read it all the way through, but I can tell you that neuroscience-wise this guy reads like a stoner rambling about quantum mechanics with a very shaky baseline comprehension of what that means.

Is the top-down/bottom-up metaphor an okay one to use as a way of describing more complicated systems that are actually functioning, or is there something about it that's so fundamentally fucked that looking through that lens is going to lead me to idiot conclusions? Because I like it as a non-literal model, but I don't want to absorb it if it's going to make me look like an idiot.

Top-down/bottom-up is a profoundly flawed model for talking about biological systems, simply because there is no such thing as purely linear directionality in any complex system; there are feedback loops at multiple points along the way, and the information exchange is always bidirectional (if not multi-directional).
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: The latest from SlateStarCodex
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2016, 07:04:15 pm »
This diagram is a simplified but possibly useful example of the complexity I am trying to describe:

Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87074
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: The latest from SlateStarCodex
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2016, 07:28:39 pm »
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff going on.  Our brains really don't intuitively grasp that much complexity, do they?

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: The latest from SlateStarCodex
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2016, 08:25:14 pm »
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff going on.  Our brains really don't intuitively grasp that much complexity, do they?

We really tend to be binary-seekers, and I'm not sure how much of that is social conditioning and how much of it is neurobiology.
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.