I like this version of Predictive Processing much better than the usual, in that you explicitly posit that warping beliefs toward success is only ONE of several motivation systems. I find this much more plausible than using it as the grand unifying theory.
That said, isn’t the observation that binocular rivalry doesn’t create suffering a pretty big point against the theory as you’ve described it?
Side note, I don’t experience the alternating images you described. I see both things superimposed, something like if you averaged the bitmaps together. Although that’s not /quite/ an accurate description. I attribute this to playing with crossing my eyes a lot at a young age, although the causality could be the other way. There’s a lot of variance in how people experience their visual field, you’ll find, if you ask people enough detailed questions about it. (Same with all sorts of aspects of cognition. Practically all cognitive studies of this kind focus on the typical response more than the variation, giving a false impression of unity of you only read summaries. I suspect a lot of the cognitive variation correlates with personality type (ie OCEAN).)
That said, isn’t the observation that binocular rivalry doesn’t create suffering a pretty big point against the theory as you’ve described it?
It does. I think that I’ve figured out a better explanation since writing this essay, but I’ve yet to write it up in a satisfying form...
Side note, I don’t experience the alternating images you described. I see both things superimposed, something like if you averaged the bitmaps together.
I like this version of Predictive Processing much better than the usual, in that you explicitly posit that warping beliefs toward success is only ONE of several motivation systems. I find this much more plausible than using it as the grand unifying theory.
That said, isn’t the observation that binocular rivalry doesn’t create suffering a pretty big point against the theory as you’ve described it?
Side note, I don’t experience the alternating images you described. I see both things superimposed, something like if you averaged the bitmaps together. Although that’s not /quite/ an accurate description. I attribute this to playing with crossing my eyes a lot at a young age, although the causality could be the other way. There’s a lot of variance in how people experience their visual field, you’ll find, if you ask people enough detailed questions about it. (Same with all sorts of aspects of cognition. Practically all cognitive studies of this kind focus on the typical response more than the variation, giving a false impression of unity of you only read summaries. I suspect a lot of the cognitive variation correlates with personality type (ie OCEAN).)
It does. I think that I’ve figured out a better explanation since writing this essay, but I’ve yet to write it up in a satisfying form...
Huh, that’s an interesting datapoint!