21–30 of 36 posts
Can anybody reading this comment please enlighten me on good algorithms for optimum bin sizes for histograms? I have tried DW Scott's (1979) method. But are there any new better kid in the block?
The article starts with, "Human beings try to find patterns to explain the reason behind almost every phenomenon, but that doesn’t mean that there is a pattern to rely on." The second part of the sentence is true, on further observation some patterns prove not to be patterns. However the first half, the attempt to explain why we "find patterns" isn't convincing. Instead, replace that phrase with this: "based on brain…
What I would say the brain is good at is finding patterns in terms of identifying what is appropriate, with a particularly general understanding of "appropriate." There's a huge evolutionary drive for this. It's a bit disjointed to say wolves howl with each other because "brains detect patterns" and somehow find them useful. It's much clearer when we say that "brains encode patterns in terms of appropriateness", and thus wolves howl with each other because their brains know it is appropriate to do so. Just like germ's biology encodes that it's appropriate to wiggle harder in salty water, or how a person knows that certain words are correct in specific situations.
So our brains are more like engines for mapping patterned associations to feelings of appropriateness in context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does joining the Nazi party qualify you as being very smart? Wikipedia references work [0] that indicates Konrad's theory could not be validated empirically. Do you have any references that validate what you are claiming as a well-known, fundamental result? Can you give a definition of the theory? [0] https://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-2007-999113
I'm tempted to point out that you went from zero to Godwin in record time. To assume that Konrad's party affiliation (likely a pragmatic choice at the time) either validates or invalidates his work is a bit absurd. The issue as I see it is one of the modern meaning, which is to say, a tendency to see patterns where none exist. Nonetheless, let us see whether Konrad's work has been dismantled in more recent studies. A…
The big issue I have is that it seems impossible to define a general concept of "pattern", such that one could claim it doesn't exist. If such a concept cannot be defined, then it is unclear what the concept actually means. The only thing I can imagine that could possibly fit would be if it meant that a person generates a theory and testable hypothesis that is able to invalidate the theory, and fails to find any supporting evidence when the hypothesis is tested, but still claims that the theory was validated in a way that is demonstrably false. Personally, I don't think psychiatrists are so invested in their patients that they would actually carry out such tests.
The article that you linked primarily recounts a single anecdote where Konrad seems to assume very much about his patient (also, it was unclear about the circumstances; do you know if the anecdote occurred during Nazi rule?). No mention is made of Konrad attempting to verify any if the patient's claims.
What result are you claiming as fundamental? The entire theory seems to be self defeating, as a pattern was suggested that has not been able to be verified.
The article starts with, "Human beings try to find patterns to explain the reason behind almost every phenomenon, but that doesn’t mean that there is a pattern to rely on." The second part of the sentence is true, on further observation some patterns prove not to be patterns. However the first half, the attempt to explain why we "find patterns" isn't convincing. Instead, replace that phrase with this: "based on brain…
Our brains are basically built to do pattern matching. Though, truthfully, I find that is too abstract of a way of putting it, and in fact, people tend to associate "meaning" with "pattern" and thus you end up with statements like that one. What I would say the brain is good at is finding patterns in terms of identifying what is appropriate , with a particularly general understanding of "appropriate." There's a huge…
Not exactly sure how you define "appropriate" in this context. Like an astronomically complex "neural net", the brain integrates "input" into pattern recognition, so it's a form of classification filtering that allows recognition of phenomena. On the basis of experiences, the classified patterns are bound to probabilistic prediction estimates, in turn informing choice of actions.
Though I know much less about wolf vs. human behavior, if analogous to human speech, howling is an action taken in response to evaluation of current environment, e.g., pattern of other wolf activity, presence of prey, etc. We might infer howling is "appropriate" under some condition, but really it's tautology, because it's equivalent to stating we observe howling under some condition. IOW the latter is a description that's complete and sufficient regarding what we "know".
It might be clearer to rephrase "appropriate" to "what is and what works", though "what works" is probably superfluous to understanding the process. IOW an attempt to "explain" the pattern recognition and response phenomena adds nothing to our knowledge, and in fact adds a level of indirection that tends to obscure the nature of process.
I should let it go at that because it's late and I'm tired. Saying more leads to multi-dimensional consideration of the nature of brain/body operations. If you are really interested in arcane and slippery meta-level or higher-order viewpoints I'm happy to say more, but better when it's earlier in the day and my head is clearer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More than I care about accuracy in usernames. Why use two pages when one word will do?
Two pages will be relevant to a far larger audience than one word will.
I looked at the author's other work. It is quite poor. This is clickbait.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our brains are basically built to do pattern matching. Though, truthfully, I find that is too abstract of a way of putting it, and in fact, people tend to associate "meaning" with "pattern" and thus you end up with statements like that one. What I would say the brain is good at is finding patterns in terms of identifying what is appropriate , with a particularly general understanding of "appropriate." There's a huge…
Appreciate your interesting thoughts on the subject. It certainly does appear that brain circuits are evolved to respond to patterns in data, for example, visual neurobiology has been studied extensively re: how visual systems can identify patterns in visual data. Not exactly sure how you define "appropriate" in this context. Like an astronomically complex "neural net", the brain integrates "input" into pattern recog…
I guess I prefer the term appropriate because it more cleanly handles the case when the patterns "don't" match: by indicating that such situations don't exist. There's always a pattern to match, just as there's always some action that's learned (or instinctually) appropriate to any given situation.
If you're trying to see appropriate as "what works", then you're probably more strongly aligning the meaning with a rational process than what I intended, but I don't think you're wrong. Either way, it bears keeping in mind that our day-to-day language isn't really optimized for discussing these kinds of things, so there's bound to be multiple layers of confusion.