M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
« Feb | Apr » | |||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
- 08/12/2011: All that jazz
- 04/12/2011: the face of the sky
- 01/12/2011: Possible functions of consciousness 6 - presence 'here'
- 28/11/2011: Why synesthesia?
- 25/11/2011: Possible functions of consciousness 5 - create 'now'
- 22/11/2011: Babel's Dawn - the book
- 19/11/2011: How similar and how different are our brains?
- 16/11/2011: Possible functions of consciousness 4 - place to imagine
- 13/11/2011: Uniqueness
- 10/11/2011: Primitive brain
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
Prediction engine
Here is another answer from the Edge question contributers (here). Andy Clark, author of Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension, writes about prediction.
The idea that the brain is basically an engine of prediction is one that will, I believe, turn out to be very valuable not just within its current home (computational cognitive neuroscience) but across the board: for the arts, for the humanities, and for our own personal understanding of what it is to be a human being in contact with the world.
We predict what our senses are going to deliver and the errors are used to correct the prediction process. Clark lists some implications of this process.
1. This means, in effect, that all perception is some form of ‘expert perception’, and that the idea of accessing some kind of unvarnished sensory truth is untenable.
2. models suggest that what emerges first is the general gist (including the general affective feel) of the scene, with the details becoming progressively filled in as the brain uses that larger context — time and task allowing — to generate finer and finer predictions of detail. There is a very real sense in which we properly perceive the forest before the trees.
3. the line between perception and cognition becomes blurred. What we perceive (or think we perceive) is heavily determined by what we know, and what we know (or think we know) is constantly conditioned on what we perceive (or think we perceive).
4. if we now consider that prediction errors can be suppressed not just by changing predictions but by changing the things predicted, we have a simple and powerful explanation for behavior and the way we manipulate and sample our environment.
It is hard to think of a better way to remain in sync, in tune, appropriate to a changing environment then a predictive loop continuously correcting errors between our expectations and what actually happens. It seems to me the conscious experience is that prediction made available to all the processes of the brain: action, perception, cognition, learning.