Det har börjat luta lite tillbaka mot postmodernismen, som Antropofagi trodde sig ha skakat av. Säkert beror detta på ett närgånget läsande av husbloggen SSC - där SSC-Scott banar vägen, där linkar Antropofagi förutsägbart efter.
Men, det där med kausal realism, som blev postmodernismens död en gång. Antropofagi minns när Brante på en föreläsning vid Lunds Högvördigt Ärevärdiga Universitet drog lite Märk Världen-esque:a exempel på att "det här ser ut som en ung respektive gammal kvinna beroende på hur man kisar, så vi kan inte lita på våra sinnen - men vi ser inte ett fotbollsstadium när vi tittar på en pansarvagn, så någon gräns är det tydligen för hur teoriberoende våra observationer är."
Antropofagi har också påpekat att det ledde två spår vidare från de logiska positivisternas misslyckanden - ett spår var att ge upp, och ett att försöka bli bättre. (Uppföljning.)
För att återgå till husbloggsläsandet så innehåller, eller snarare är, det här SSC-inlägget ett tekniskt argument för varför den kausala realismens gyllene medelväg förmodligen är korrekt. (Och, för övrigt, en fet teoretiskt komplement till Oliver Sacks fallbeskrivningar.)
Antropofagi skrev:
"De logiska positivisterna ville skapa en objektiv, neutral vetenskap, som bara byggde på rena observationer och logisk härledning.
Så kom man på att observationer inte är så rena. Och att vi inte är så bra på att vara neutrala och objektiva.
Vissa gav då upp. Typ: 'Det är svårt att vara objektiv, så vi försöker inte ens. Vi tror att alla utsagor enbart speglar aktörens intressen eller position.'
[...]
Andra gav dock inte upp. Typ: 'Det är svårt att vara objektiv, så vi försöker bli bättre. Vi studerar metodiskt vår hjärna och vårt medvetande; vår kognition och vår psykologi. Vi upptäcker systematiska bias, och uppdagar goda förklaringar, t.ex. utifrån evolutionspsykologiska teorier, som visar oss varför vi t.ex. tenderar att vara xenofoba eller leta verifierande snarare än falsifierande bevis.'"
SSC skriver:
"Voodoo psychology suggests that culture and expectation tyrannically shape our perceptions. Taken to an extreme, objective knowledge is impossible, since all our sense-data is filtered through our own bias. Taken to a very far extreme, we get things like What The !@#$ Do We Know?‘s claim that the Native Americans literally couldn’t see Columbus’ ships, because they had no concept of “caravel” and so the percept just failed to register. This sort of thing tends to end by arguing that science was invented by straight white men, and so probably just reflects straight white maleness, and so we should ignore it completely and go frolic in the forest or something.
Predictive processing is sympathetic to all this. It takes all of this stuff like priming and the placebo effect, and it predicts it handily. But it doesn’t give up. It (theoretically) puts it all on a sound mathematical footing, explaining exactly how much our expectations should shape our reality, and in which ways our expectation should shape our reality. I feel like someone armed with predictive processing and a bit of luck should have been able to predict that placebo effect and basic priming would work, but stereotype threat and social priming wouldn’t. Maybe this is total retrodictive cheating. But I feel like it should be possible.
If this is true, it gives us more confidence that our perceptions should correspond – at least a little – to the external world. We can accept that we may be misreading 'PARIS IN THE THE SPRINGTIME while remaining confident that we wouldn’t misread 'PARIS IN THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE SPRINGTIME' as containing only one 'the'. Top-down processing very occasionally meddles in bottom-up sensation, but (as long as you’re not schizophrenic), it sticks to an advisory role rather than being able to steamroll over arbitrary amounts of reality.
The rationalist project is overcoming bias, and that requires both an admission that bias is possible, and a hope that there’s something other than bias which we can latch onto as a guide. Predictive processing gives us more confidence in both, and helps provide a convincing framework we can use to figure out what’s going on at all levels of cognition."
Predictive processing is sympathetic to all this. It takes all of this stuff like priming and the placebo effect, and it predicts it handily. But it doesn’t give up. It (theoretically) puts it all on a sound mathematical footing, explaining exactly how much our expectations should shape our reality, and in which ways our expectation should shape our reality. I feel like someone armed with predictive processing and a bit of luck should have been able to predict that placebo effect and basic priming would work, but stereotype threat and social priming wouldn’t. Maybe this is total retrodictive cheating. But I feel like it should be possible.
If this is true, it gives us more confidence that our perceptions should correspond – at least a little – to the external world. We can accept that we may be misreading 'PARIS IN THE THE SPRINGTIME while remaining confident that we wouldn’t misread 'PARIS IN THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE THE SPRINGTIME' as containing only one 'the'. Top-down processing very occasionally meddles in bottom-up sensation, but (as long as you’re not schizophrenic), it sticks to an advisory role rather than being able to steamroll over arbitrary amounts of reality.
The rationalist project is overcoming bias, and that requires both an admission that bias is possible, and a hope that there’s something other than bias which we can latch onto as a guide. Predictive processing gives us more confidence in both, and helps provide a convincing framework we can use to figure out what’s going on at all levels of cognition."
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar