Nice to discover Judea Pearl ask a fundamental question. What's an 'inductive bias'?

I crucial step on the road towards AGI is a richer vocabulary for reasoning about inductive biases.
@yudapearl explores the apparent impedance mismatch between inductive biases and causal reasoning. But isn't the logical thinking required for good causal reasoning also not an inductive bias?
An inductive bias is what C.S. Peirce would call a habit. It is a habit of reasoning. Logical thinking is like a Platonic solid of the many kinds of heuristics that are discovered.
The kind of black and white logic that is found in digital computers is critical to the emergence of today's information economy. This of course is not the same logic that drives the general intelligence that lives in the same economy.
Digital computers do not have the inductive biases to navigate the complex and messy world of life. Look around, have you seen a machine with the autonomy of a honey bee? They simply have no grounding in life.
General intelligence emerges out of things that are alive. To construct a synthetic general intelligence requires the kind of algorithm that organically grows itself from the inside out.
Which requires the kind of inductive biases that are organic in nature.
So what this reveals is that an inductive bias is an emergent feature of a complex process. Just like the wetness of water. It is interesting to identify these biases, but they aren't the process themselves. They are how we describe the process.
Things that our brains can identify are things that exhibit recurring patterns. We feel the wetness of water because that wetness repeats itself every time we feel water. This causation invariance in nature forges the causality reasoning necessary for navigating a messy world.
An inductive bias is the identifiable recurring thought process (i.e. habits) the brain has developed in the process of its own constructive development while growing into this world.
This said one should never mistake the map from the actual territory. A cognitive bias developed by too many is to confuse the two.
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from Carlos E. Perez

More from For later read

The common understanding of propaganda is that it is intended to brainwash the masses. Supposedly, people get exposed to the same message repeatedly and over time come to believe in whatever nonsense authoritarians want them to believe /1

And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.

Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2

When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.

The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3

In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it

Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.

The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.
I shared this on my FB page and asked, can ya really blame him?

I was half kidding. I also assumed someone would think of what I did pretty quickly and waiting for the comment to mention what I assumed was obvious.

The timing. I was sure someone else had thought of it.

But no one did. 20+ comments in people discussed the morality or bad sense or libertarian perspectives. Someone even said I’m thinking about doing that. No one said what I thought was obvious. Have you thought of it? Is it obvious to you?

Here’s a clue...recognize it?

How about this?

The author discusses it with Mike Wallace in 1958

You May Also Like