then we’re faced with a surprising empirical fact: there’s a remarkable degree of convergence among which things people do-or-don’t model as agentic at which times. Humans yes, rocks no. (…) What caused the convergence?
In my view, because there exists what we call the « biological movement area ». Like color is subjective, but that does not prevent biological and environmental constraints to cause convergence of visions (ah ah).
We’re all Bayesian now, right?
That sounds most probably significant. 😉
Yet somehow, people seem to converge on models which aren’t anti-inductive.
That’s of course true for, say, physics. But what about political questions, like the blue and the red or the pro/anti vax/war/warming/etc? It seems to me that there are domains of knowledge that looks as if anti-induction was a thing. And not just in social sciences: interpretation of QM, not even wrong vs strings, fondation of mathematics… and everything about cognition, including AI!
In my view, because there exists what we call the « biological movement area ». Like color is subjective, but that does not prevent biological and environmental constraints to cause convergence of visions (ah ah).
That sounds most probably significant. 😉
That’s of course true for, say, physics. But what about political questions, like the blue and the red or the pro/anti vax/war/warming/etc? It seems to me that there are domains of knowledge that looks as if anti-induction was a thing. And not just in social sciences: interpretation of QM, not even wrong vs strings, fondation of mathematics… and everything about cognition, including AI!
Great points, thanks!