BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Reply to this topicStart new topic
> active inference, active inference
post Jun 17, 2017, 12:16 PM
Post #1


Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Jun 17, 2017
Member No.: 38702

Hi everyone!

what is your opinion on karl fristonsí theory of active inference?

I think there are many interesting counterintuitive implications associated with it, eg, that top-down predictions are primary.

Best regards!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jun 17, 2017, 09:24 PM
Post #2


Group: Basic Member
Posts: 237
Joined: Mar 18, 2016
Member No.: 38120

I'm not a Professor, and hope I could provide some suggestive opinions.

1. Just for the opinion exchange. I don't think the so-called active inference is much helpful. The efficiently dynamic anlysis could be helpful, when combined with the models you have constructed or formed from you tool center in the area of brain research just for the purpose for analysis under the brain context, which might include the neuro-signalling . Actually, the active inference might be not quite accurate in the explanation of the mind activities in some conditions, and be not helpful in prediction of the future behaviours.

2. True. Sometimes you'll find some phenomena that didn't accord with the common sensations people or persons expect. It shows the individual qualities of individuals. As to the "top-down predictions are primary", I thought it's actually element-forming frame. Normally, the element first formed, and frame then contructed. Some people will use the setted opinions to analysis, and in some conditions it might not be working.

3. "Experience is one way to show your interest and span for the research, which has no direct links with the innovation and best practices. In my opinion, the continuing ability-based performance with interest is the key and the related recognition is important. I thought the essence of the education was the life-long learning and improvements, in which the so-called formal and regular education should be changed into the intensive and flexible learning aiming for the ability-based performances. To be a real intelligence neuroscientist or cognitive neuroscientist, you might need specialized ability-based performance and fund-included web-platform instead of a doctoral degree or post-doctoral medical background, or some professional training certificates or qualifications. "Learning and improving oneself is a life-long course. To be earnest, degrees and diplomas or occupational certificates or qualifications, even the web courses are totally not necessary to the research, even in the future. Internet, specialized e-contents and the interest for the research, including the practicing and webforum, is necessary." from one poster in this forum.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd September 2018 - 11:22 PM

Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  

Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

BrainMeta is supported by donors of The Neurological Foundation