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. https://t.co/64gYeKBtI2
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

Programming in abstractions is very different from a system that is capable of its own 'abstracting'. But what does abstracting mean? We only know of its inputs and outputs, but we fail to describe its inner workings.

I like this short video about living in space. This is because it makes you realize the gaps in your knowledge when you turn off something (i.e. gravity) that you have always assumed to be present.


Perhaps we can understand 'abstracting' better if we turn of many assumptions that we unconsciously carry around. Perhaps we need to get rid of the excess baggage that is confusing our thinking about abstraction.

Turning off gravity and living in space is a perfect analogy. We somehow have to turn off a cognitive process to understand the meaning of abstraction.

The first step to divorce ourselves from our habitual cognitive processes is to realize the pervasiveness of 'noun-thinking' .

More from For later read

(1/50)

#Cardano “Understanding Kamali”

#Cardano will be the underpinning of the emergence of Africa.

To grasp the full weight of the SOLUTIONS #Cardano can provide it is pertinent to read “Understanding Africa” as I will draw directly from the PROBLEMS laid out.


(2/50)

Here is a link if you have not already read


(3/50)

What I will attempt to do here, is to create an immersive world for you to be placed in to grasp the weight and size of problems from the ground level and then take a grass-roots approach at solving them using #Cardano and its technology.

(4/50)

As an investor and community member of #Cardano, this should be extremely important to you as you have a stake (pun intended) in this.

“You are paid in direct proportion to the difficulty of the problems you solve” - @elonmusk

(5/50)

In Africa, agribusiness, more than any other sector, has the potential to reduce poverty and drive economic growth. Agriculture accounts for nearly half of the continent’s gross domestic product and employs 60 percent of the labor force.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?