Cognitive Predictionism

____________________ ____________________After seeing these two articles, the former of which was found just two days ago in the local Times, I feel that there is now mounting evidence stronger than ever to support a theorysomewhat of an hypothesis, but moreso meant to explain data than to find unknown valueson which I've been working and pondering for some time, what I like to call Cognitive Predictionism. I have hinted at this theory of mine before, in another thread at EvC: Ramblings Dj Vu, but I must admit that its full development came after my development of that hypothesis on the explanation for dj vu.Cognitive Predictionism (CP), as I call it, states the following (briefly, of course): The central functioning aspects of the human brain serve their roles by making, based on input from sources, the identities of which are not to the definition of the terminology relevant, predictions; that is, through the combination of various informations within the brain, the central functioning aspects generate new informationinformation which being rather arbitrarily combinatorial has and gives the impression of being predictive, or a supposed outcome given the combination of specific informations in specific manners and orders.The essential aspect of CP is not that it supposes the brain's mere ability to combine strings of information (sentrices) into new and larger sentrices,¹ but it asserts that such actions are the regular functionings of the brain. Furthermore, depending on the input used, CP allows the brain to perform mental tasks all the way from critical decision making (using heavy amounts of external input) to night-time dreaming (using little if any external input).² With new research hinting that an imaginative state is a normal part of brain function, and that the imaginative state is linked to creativity, the case for CP as the explanation to both these phenomena and the general phenomenon of brain function becomes strongeror so it appears to me.That is all for now. Eager for discussion.Jon
__________
¹ For a discussion on the notion of sentrices and their supposed role in brain mechanics, view this thread: What's in a Word?, specifically the first couple of posts.
² It is because, of course, the input in dreaming is not linked to the real world that the content of the dreams is often very obscure and supernatural in its form. The greater the amount of input from the real world, the greater the degree to which predictions will appear grounded. Of further interest is the notion that if dreams are formed not from individual external inputs (like critical thinking is) but from previously-combined sentrices acting in place of such inputs, it may explain why dreams appear to 'hop' in terms of the imagined environment: as the sentrices are combined atop other combined sentrices, the point is reached at which the brain's capacity can no longer carry the load, and the sentrices are remapped using an aspect of their fundamental higher-order architecture to create a single sentrix in which the form of its node-layout is as close a replica as possible to the layout of the combined sentriceseach old sentrix (or combination of sentrices acting as a single sentrix) is remapped as the node of a new single sentrix, thus turning one image into another.

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can\'t..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

I was unable to work out how to use the google translate function to convert that into English Now that we have this hypothesis, how would we use it? Would it help us build an AI system and if so, how? Would it help a teacher improve his/her curriculum or teaching methodology and if so, how? I am struggling to see how to connect this hypothesis to anything that actually matters.

Yes, it would. One AI hurtle is replication/emulation of the spontaneous human creative/imaginative potential. If CP is correct, then it means there is no such thing as true spontaneous creativity, but that what is perceived as spontaneous creativity is merely an intricate reaction to various inputs, all ultimately derived externally. Instead of programming a series of reaction to possible inputs, programming a system based on the CP theory may prove more beneficial to the creation of AI as well as the conservation of electronic storage space. Here's what it gave to me:"Cognitive Predictionism says that the brain works by making predictions. These predictions are simply the combination of information previously acquired/outputs of a previous predictive process." (Okay, so I translated that myself.)Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

You seem to have not responded to the "and if so, how?" part, unless I missed it.I have my own ideas about how a cognitive system works. I am unable to tell whether your CP is consistent with it or not. And that suggests that your account is a bit too vague at present. But what kind of predictions?What AI usually fails to account for, is how the bits used in the AI system connect to reality. That's roughly the intentionality problem that Searle raises in his Chinese Room argument. What traditional philosophy (includes epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of truth) fails to account for, is how natural language words connect to reality. So I see a gap (or a huge gaping chasm) in most current attempts to explain cognition. I'm wondering whether your CP does anything to fill that gap.

I thought I did, but it might not have been clear enough. What in my explanation was not specific to your question? Ultimately, of course, I am not trying to find answers to the questions of AI or computational this or that. Rather, I am seeking an explanation to the problem of human cognition that assumes as little as possible about the organ in question while keeping that explanation as mechanical and physical as possiblenot assuming silly things like systems of rules and representations that have yet no way to be understood as physically represented in any known living system; things that the cognition can contain but that could hardly be the basis for said cognition. Any and all. What kind of predictions are there from which to choose? By prediction I merely mean the creation of one thought from anotherit needn't be accurate. This, sir, is what my theory of language solves, in humans, that is. You can read all about that theory over in the other thread: What's in a Word? As the theory lays out, visual, audio, and other perceptual inputs are arranged in the brain in such a way as that each individually-recognized item is encoded, as it were, as a special and unique sentrix, or neural network representative of a Concept. The only issue I have, of course, is whether or not this same system used within the human brain network would be suitable to computational sciences or if there is a much better way to create an entity capable of cognitive interactions with its surroundings.Many attempts at explaining human cognition have failed when computational efficiency is assumed essential to the explanation. When the mystery is fully solved, I believe we will see endless redundancy and recursion (to capacity, that is) along with a function that is architectural rather than procedural.Supper time...Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

I didn't find that theory at all convincing, though I decided not to comment at the time.

If your point is that our brains make predictions about the future then I agree. An organism that can model the likely future has a massive advantage in terms of survival and if the organism can modle multiple likely outcomes and strategise for each one it improves it's fit ness even more.The down side is that humans are prone to worry. In Generalsied Anxiety Disorder people generate largely negative predictions about the liklely future and this leads activation of the fight/flight response which is in turn inhibited by the use of worry to enter into and 'emergency prognostication mode' where multiple catastrophic futres are modelled with the intent of being able to avoid such catastrophes.I had difficulty wading through some of your posts but modelling the future in our heads is not something new to psychology.

Yes, indeed. However, the essence of the theory I here present is not merely that predictions¹ take place, but that they are the very cause of all higher-order functionings within the brain. It is not simply the ability to postulate on future occurrences, but rather the operationsthe construction of realitiesare the fundamentals of higher brain orders. Thus, this theory states, that the predictive processes of the human brain are the same processes responsible for all other cognitive-imaginative functioning.Jon
__________
¹ Here, and for this theory, a "prediction" is simply an internalconstructedreality built from information in the form of other internalconstructed and/or externally derivedreality(-ies).

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Huh?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I don't understand:What is the difference between 'higher order functioning' and 'cognition'.You seem to be saying that we can model the future: I agree. But what is this higher order function and how is it different from cognition?

Count me as very skeptical of that - particularly of the part that I emphasized. While we can be said to have some ability to construct realities, I don't see that ability as at all fundamental. I would place perception as being more important.

Indeed. Perception is where it all starts. But I am not as convinced that perception is all too proceduralinformation gathering is something I'd relegate to the input phase of brain activity, especially since it seems quite different than the reasoning of humans, information gathering being a function of which all brain-possessing creatures are capable. In terms of procedure, I'd say the manipulation of the input is more relevant. Fair enough; you are right to be skeptical. I've yet to provide much evidence for my proposition, though I hope to be able to do so soon enough, and would have had some by now were it easier to come by information that dealt with this topic. Perhaps we can start with something basic: do the higher-order brain functions stem from a common cause/mental mechanism, or is each one independently ?As I went through an old schedule book of mine, I found a note that I had jotted down to myself: "Are areas responsible for cognition the same as areas responsible for dreams b/c they are in-co-operable?" Seeing this sparked me to consider the matter further, and this is what I've so far come up with:= Cognition/thinking-reasoning behavior and dreaming (day & night) never co-occur; where one is found, the other is found wanting
= = Their behavior/operations are exclusive
= Dreaming and cognition share similar forms
= = Both involve extensive use of images and low use of language¹
= = Both leave reality repeatedly to a different, internalized realm
= = Both have beginning and ending periodsThough these are preliminary properties, and as such the list is incomplete, they point to a truth about the relationship of cognition to dreaming: they operate atop the same mental mechanism.This then is the first step, to realize that cognition and dreaming are part of the same mental mechanism (even if different parts of the brain become active for each).Jon__________
¹ Language may well be processed with the same mechanism as cognition and dreaming.

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Cognition is a higher-order function. If I said anything that implied them to be distinct, I apologize. I consider dreaming and cognition to both be higher-order functions, along with language, etc. Cognition is, to me, a mental state that encompasses things such as conscious thinking, pondering, contemplation, deliberation, etc. performed without the aid of language.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

I see perception as somewhat creative. And I see thinking as involving perception in the form of proprioception or self-perception. That seems a bit forced.

I am willing to accept the notion of perception as creative, but only in a specific sense. Tell me, in what sense do you mean perception is somewhat creative? In what way? Have you different understandings?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar