Re: Differences, Feedback, Timing, and Training



> >> Cute last phrase, Dan. I think I'll use it. But for someone without a
> >> philosophy bent you sure do a lot of talking to no effective end. You
> >> assume feedback is the basis of intelligence
> >
> >
> >Again you are misquoting me. After being told otherwise dozens of
> >times. Feedback is just one of the elements in the overall system.
>
> Sure. Feedback is just the key element in your overall system unless I
> miss the drift of your moniker.
>


Definitely, if you remove the feedback between areas of brain, you'd
lose any semblance of the system being able to perform intelligence
things, but AFAIAC you still need the hierarchies and many specialized
modules in order for feedback to work its magic upon.



> >> >There's a saying, philosophers always come when the dinner bell chimes,
> >> >and the awards are about to be given.
> >>
> >> Yeah, Dan, I don't know why you want to insult me by calling me a
> >> philosopher. You do as much talking to no effect as anyone around
> >> here.
> >
> >
> >
> >Because you're really talking philosophy and illusion, but just don't
> >seem to understand science.
>
> I understand both empiricism and science. You understand the former
> but don't seem to understand or want to understand its assumptions of
> truth for its beliefs. At least I haven't seen any experimental
> validation for your belief in feedback. Just saying it's there and has
> some functional role doesn't present any method for experimental
> invalidation.


As pointed out many times, FB is one of the key ingredients for
production of organization and self-organization in essentially every
complex system so far studied, both physical and biological. There is
no reason whatsoever to believe you could leave it out of brain
operaiton, and ever get diddly in terms of intelligence.

Also, where you go wrong in your statements regards scientific method
is that you can't seem to see the difference between observations and
measurements, and "hypotheses" drawn upon those observations and
measurements. This is why you keep bringing the term "belief" and
"assumptions" into the discussion. As Randi said [cf, in the quote that
AC badly mis-revised], scientific hypotheses and theories are based
upon the best available evidence, and when the evidence changes, the
hypotheses and theories need to be revised. Once we had Bohr atoms, now
we have probabilisitic electron clouds. On and on. Likewise, here we
have certain [partial] evidence and we're forming hypotheses based upon
this.



>So you're the one really talking philosophy and illusion
> because you don't even acknowlegde the need for experimental tests of
> what you maintain regarding feedback and its role in intelligence.
>
> > I see no difference between what you say
> >and what Cybulskie says about scientific method. It has to be pointed
> >out to both of you that, despite your arguments, you rely upon objects
> >and devices created according to the scientific method. You don't even
> >blink an eye in doing so, only when talking about it.
>
> I rely on objects and devices created by the inspired guesstimates of
> empiricists who don't seem to understand the difference between truth
> in science and assumptions of truth in empiricism.
>


Repeat of above.


> >> >Secondly, your phrase "... evidence in itself ..." takes things out of
> >> >context. It's not one or the other, differences, feedback, timing, or
> >> >training. In fact, all of these factor into the ONLY real example - ie,
> >> >existence proof - we have of intelligence, namely operation of the
> >> >brain.
> >>
> >> So you don't see feedback as the key to intelligence? News to me.
> >>
> >
> >
> >See above, and below, both.
>
> Yeah I know. You make feedback the key to intelligence and then argue
> philosophy with everyone who doesn't agree that you haven't.
>


I don't know how many times the issue of context and systems operation
have been repeated. The fundamental truism regarding systems operation
is that it changes when you change the component ingredients. Feedback
cannot do anything in isolation of the rest of the system. However, FB
also adds important things that the rest of the system are unable to
perform in the absence of FB. To say it yet again, without FB present
in the typical system covered by "complexity theory", all you get is
something with the organizing power of a random gas.



> >> > and read some Bateson, you might see things a little
> >> >diffferently.
> >>
> >> Guess again. Bateson is hardly the authority on differences between
> >> differences anywhere including around here. I am.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Bateson was the guy who understodd that these problems need to be
> >attacked using a systems approach. Not just looking at the bitty pieces
> >in reductive isolation.
>
> Sure that's why you don't look at the itty bitty pieces like feedback.
> Bateson was the guy who couldn't even understand his own inspired
> guess and seems to have wandered off into mysticism as a result. I'm
> the guy who managed to demonstrate the implications of differences
> mechanically. That's the difference between empiricism and science.
>


The later Bateson was probably struck by the mortality-bug, just as
were Popper and Eccles and now S.Hawkings. However, the earlier Bateson
made the connection between cybernetics and biological systems.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Differences, Feedback, Timing, and Training
    ... >>>are measurements. ... Especially not when you discuss empiricism and pretend it's science. ... >> philosophy bent you sure do a lot of talking to no effective end. ... Feedback is just one of the elements in the overall system. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: blotchy shells
    ... accepted them" philosophy. ... Don't you only have 30 days from when you pay to leave feedback? ... You need to get over your negative EBay experience. ...
    (sci.agriculture.poultry)
  • Re: blotchy shells
    ... would seem to contradict your "once you've set them you've accepted them" ... philosophy. ... Don't you only have 30 days from when you pay to leave feedback? ...
    (sci.agriculture.poultry)
  • Re: TDD: Test-Driven Design or Test-Driven Development?
    ... "Universe" wrote in message ... > accurate knowledge most rapidly - the scientific method ... Looks like short cycles based on feedback from lots of testing to me. ... blah blah blah ...
    (comp.object)