Hacker News Reader

I think you're thinking of prediction at a way higher-level than this article is (although I admit I only skimmed it).

What I got from the article I felt was fairly obvious - it's more like 'to catch a falling object your brain predicts where it will be by the time your hand moves into position'. This seems pretty elementary to being able to function at all - things like predicting how we will need to shift our centre of gravity to walk on uneven terrain, etc. It seems entirely reasonable that we are constantly making these 'micro-predictions' on a subconscious level. This is also necessary to be able to navigate a 3D environment based on our vision, which is based on a pair of overlapping 2-dimensional projections.

So what you're talking about doesn't make much sense to me at this level. Reasoning about future events is completely different to the subconscious mental models of our vision system or language processing. At the level the article talks about, mostly the worst you can be taken advantage of is things like being tricked by an optical illusion.

Physics equations about balls falling are more accurate. The body and mind are good at guessing. That doesn't mean they are right about everything it guesses, especially models of cognition. Why bring up the the subconscious? How does that support anything?

> mostly the worst you can be taken advantage of is things like being tricked by an optical illusion

Imagine living your whole life under an optical illusion. That should at the very least, be a choice you can choose between.

> We can't predict the future.

What tosh. Of course we can predict the future... and sometimes our prediction is correct.

Data compression works by modelling the data stream and predicting the next symbol based on that model, and then recording in an efficient way the degree to which the prediction was correct. The comparison between the prediction and the actual outcome is the key point -- just as it is in the article.

Eventually the system you use to model information with will override actual data. That's a feedback loop of confirmation bias. It's thinking in terms of time. How many models of data do you interact with versus how much actual data are you interacting with. I'm not on a soapbox without a point. It's a fine line. Your own mind matters in these systems. It's important to not undervalue it. It's not a computer. It's not a better computer. It's sometimes flawed.

I'm fine with calling it probabalistic inferencing. It's not future prediction, especially when the models one is reasoning about are models of cognition.

Thank you for not down voting though, that's appreciated.

The historical term is forecast. Catching a ball is enough evidence the ability exists. I agree, it’s important to not overstate the possibility, but it’s not nothing.

And forecasting models of thinking influences future thinking. But it might just be your thinking it influences, and not everyone else, and that's tunnel vision.

This: "because you literally stop being able to see things for how they are truly"

is flawed. You never see things for how they are truly. You see them through a filter of your sensory capabilities, your mental organization, and, as this article discusses, your aptitude for prediction.

If you only see the world through models of information, that is your perception.

That doesn't negate the fact that there's measurable, testable reality that can be reproduced using scientific rigor.

It's just a perspective from someone who has experienced being carried away with the waves. Aptitude for prediction helps you and tells you it's all working as expected until it slams you with hard consequences that leave enough impact to know where to draw your own line.

My own father told me these things. I didn't listen. Guess what happened?

It's arrogant to assume people can't catch up. Even if they don't understand exactly, you can't predict all the consequences of how people interact with a person who thinks they can predict the future, and especially people who act like some people are better at it than others. It works, until it doesn't.

> That doesn't negate the fact that there's measurable, testable reality that can be reproduced using scientific rigor.

Yes it does. Who decided what scientific rigor was? What instrument did they use to come to that conclusion? How do they perceive the results of their experiments?

Lots of educated people over centuries of refinement with concrete evidence that such methods improved chances for individual and collective human survival. Medicine, agriculture, industrialization, the green revolution, etc. There's tons of science that is continuously focused on progress and in a continuous state of refinement and acutely aware that studies must be reproducible and held to a standard.

If we collectively decide we can't trust our own individual senses, what do you think happens to our chances for survival?

> Do not call it future prediction. Sometimes you will be correct about things before things happen. That's just chance. If it can happen, it can happen, it's in that space. But it's fundamentally flawed reasoning. There's still a whole open space of things yet to be experienced. That's what existence is defined as. You don't know what you know until you know what you know. It's not magic. It's called experiencing new things.

From this part, it sounds to me like you're taking the meaning of "premonition" and applying it to "prediction"...

Let me phrase this another way.

If a predictive model is only predicting data about it's own model, it's going to be self proving.

There is still a giant space of everything else. And the more ones thoughts become consumed with models of prediction, the easier it is to ignore the space of everything else.

But I guess simple, boring language describing the phenomona isn't interesting enough.

What is the difference between a cognitive model that 'predicts' it's own behavior, and a premonition, when none of the data has anything to do with anything besides thinking about thinking?

Seems like you're implying the word "prediction" should not even exist. Because, obviously, you can't apply it to the past or the present.

I'm being very pedantic for the very specific cases it's applied to models of cognition.

True, I don't like the word prediction in general, aside from maybe being used for the most minimal stability one requires for survival.

That seems essential for the human mind to have enough security in it's own existing understanding to avoid descending into a state of analysis paralysis.

If we can't predict the future then what can we predict?

That's a non sequitor that assumes a premise that can't be proven correct without assuming it's correct before it can be proven.