“Imagine that there is some real structure in the world – a three-dimensional object, a grammar, or, especially relevant to theories, a network of causal relationships. That structure gives rise to some patterns of observable evidence rather than others – a particular set of retinal images, or spoken sentences, or statistical contingencies between events. That spatial or grammatical or causal structure can be represented mathematically, by a 3-d map or tree structure or a causal graph. You could think of such a representation as a hypothesis about what the actual structure is like. This representation will also allow you to mathematically generate patterns of evidence from that structure. So you can predict the patterns of evidence that follow from the hypothesis, and make new inferences accordingly. For example, a map or a tree or a causal graph will let you predict how an object will look from a different angle, whether a new sentence will be acceptable, or that a new event will be followed by other events. If the hypothesis is correct, then these inferences will turn out to be right.” “Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms and the theory theory” Alison Gopnik, Henry M. Wellman, 2012

“Imagine that there is … [read full article]

 

Properties vs Characteristics vs Attributes. Major hair splitting. Properties are usually general. Characteristics can be “case-by-case”. I think “attributes” are equivalent to “characteristics”.

Properties vs Characteristics vs
[read full article]
 

Perhaps it’s only information once it becomes an observable. Prior to becoming an observable, it’s governed by other processes that we do not observe. We approximate the behavior of the unobserved by utilizing probabilities. But what do probabilities measure? “which outcome?”, which is the observation itself. But if an outcome is guaranteed to eventually occur, could you start with the assumption of “this is an observable that will result in a precise value” as a starting point and work backwards? (rather like solving a maze from the end and working towards the beginning which is almost always easier)

Perhaps it’s only information
[read full article]
 

Additional note regarding background/foreground: Inbetween my 5 days ago comment on background/foreground, my 13 yr old nephew came to me with a question. He wanted to know why he gets double vision of the background when he’s focusing closely on the foreground and gets double vision of the foreground when he’s focusing on background. I was stumped at first, and asked uvuncular questions to determine if he has easy conscious control of it (to know if it’s medical or just playing around), all the while trying to puzzle out what’ s happening. Then it hit me! I don’t see in 3D. I physically cannot. Born with a right lazy eye that has no central vision, I have “cyclops vision”. It’s a band that goes across like a movie, with “awareness” but not sharpness on my right side. Now I thought stereo vision worked by “popping forward” something when you get close enough to it. But I never considered “foreground / background” (as if a video game / movie / theater) is an aspect of 3D stereoscopic vision. So, I had my answer to give. A guy without 3D vision explaining a hypothetical 3D vision process to a guy with 3D vision. Blind leading the sighted. .(when I get double vision, I do not distinguish foreground / background. it’s all the same).

Additional note regarding background/foreground:
[read full article]