Happy 20th!
This from my morning reading may be of interest:
Godfrey It is an interesting read.
On the story of the Presbyterian minister, It appears to me that Bayes’s premise—that these statistical models are somehow validated by their historical roots in defending religious miracles—is a distraction. Whether the brain uses Bayesian inference is a question for empirical observation, not a matter of theological vindication to use complex probalistic analysis to defend the existence of miracles.
The attempt to use complex, abstract logic to justify a belief that is not rooted in the clear, self-evident testimony of our senses, reminds me of how Epicurus spoke against the use of dialectics. He viewed the complex, abstract logic favored by the Stoics and Academics as a source of "empty words" that served only to disturb the soul’s tranquility rather than clarify the nature of reality.
The focus on modern use of Bayesian brain hypothesis is better examined in the referenced article, "The Neural Mechanisms of Bayesian Belief Updating". This hypothesis more closely aligns with our understanding that the mind is a physical organ, not a mystical entity.
