fantastic and fascinating review! interesting to see the discussion of auxiliary hypotheses from a Bayesian angle and contrast it with Popperian angle I'm more familiar with.
re: the question of "Bayesian Fundamentalism or Enlightenment?", do you think Bayesianism roughly does explain what's happening in the brain or that another framework is better?
Glad you liked it! There's tons of research on dopamine and reward prediction error, in which violations of an animal's predictions can be used for learning things like complex motor sequences, but as far as I know (and as Gershman suggests in the book) it's likely not an algorithm neurons implement. Or if they do, they do in a roundabout way, as in the case of someone who's utterly convinced of and follows Bayesianism in life more generally. As of now, I'm pretty skeptical of most existing "universal" theories of brain function, but maybe I'm reading the wrong ones! Do send along ideas you've been reading about!
fantastic and fascinating review! interesting to see the discussion of auxiliary hypotheses from a Bayesian angle and contrast it with Popperian angle I'm more familiar with.
re: the question of "Bayesian Fundamentalism or Enlightenment?", do you think Bayesianism roughly does explain what's happening in the brain or that another framework is better?
Glad you liked it! There's tons of research on dopamine and reward prediction error, in which violations of an animal's predictions can be used for learning things like complex motor sequences, but as far as I know (and as Gershman suggests in the book) it's likely not an algorithm neurons implement. Or if they do, they do in a roundabout way, as in the case of someone who's utterly convinced of and follows Bayesianism in life more generally. As of now, I'm pretty skeptical of most existing "universal" theories of brain function, but maybe I'm reading the wrong ones! Do send along ideas you've been reading about!