https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.company.numerositycheat
Anyone take any other of these games recently? I might just try to make cheats for all of them. Give me HackerRank all day over that BS.
Napoleons don't expect Muscovites to raze Moscow but, it is effective. Besides, certain wounds need cauterized.
Hi!
I've been reading some papers on numerical cognition, and noticed that they frequently use neural nets and different kinds of unsupervised learning which develop sensitivity to numbers (numerosity) in order to e.g. research whether numerical cognition is innate or learnable. Neurons tuned to specific numbers emerge in these models, which is fascinating in itself.
See for example: Nasr et al., (2019), Number detectors spontaneously emerge in a deep neural network designed for visual object recognition, (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaav7903.full.
Now to the point; within various domains in philosophy, the existence of abstract objects, specifically numbers, has been doubted. You know the drill; from Kant, Frege, Russell to Dedekind, Hale, Benacerraf etc. Psychologism has to be false in order to preserve the objectivity of maths;Numbers can't be properties (is a deck of cards 1 or 52?) Platonism is problematic, because how could we have access to non-spatiotemporal objects? et cetera.
My question is, could the spontaneous development of neurons tuned to numerosity in computational models inform us about the ontological status of numbers?
Or, if a computational model picks out something what we could categorize as being an abstract pattern or object, what does that tell us? I have found surprisingly little literature on this, and I am not sure whether that is because I phrase my queries wrong, or because there just isn't really much discussion about this.
I guess this moves into philosophy of science, because we do have to be critical of human-made models, right? Are they able to find emergent patterns in the world? Can they discover things outside of our perception or will they always reflect what we already (unconsciously) know?
Basically, I have tons to learn about the use and validity of models, and underlying (philosophical) theory, and I was hoping perhaps some of you could point me towards some literature :)
xoxo
More literature on the models:
Verguts (2004), Representation of Number in Animals and Humans: A Neural Model .
Dehaene & Changeux, Development of elemental numerical abilities, a neural model.
Testolin et al. Perception of visual numerosity in humans and machines .
Skip to 3 minutes in as usual to avoid ads. Mark on the phone again, so bad sound again. In what must be a record for Adam, he rants about traffic just 30 seconds in.
Adam is offended by something a huffington post black lesbian blogger says which is pretty ironic. Mark was right about the Cosby case which in all fairness, he was. Cut back to Adam who wants to be offended by the Huffpo blogger again. Mark on jury selection for a while which is always interesting.
Adam repeats that Michael Brown of Ferguson isn't someone that the community should rally around. Talk about the Philando Castile case. Adam thinks the cop wasn't racist, just a bad cop with one of the worst analogies ever that you can hear if you listen to the show. Adam thinks if he was black with the bad neighbours he had, he'd think they were making his life difficult because he was black. Mark has an interesting rant on police shootings.
Highlight of the show is Adam giving out about experts opinions. He thinks people need to stop listening to "experts". Presumably that means he should get rid of Mark and get in Ryan Lochte to talk about law instead.
News on Marks class action lawsuit.
The "Former prosecutor" dead horse is well and truly beaten.
Not a bad episode, but not great. Give it a listen if your playlist is running low.
