Learning from experience
Hello Rabbi,
I heard the first lesson and I would like to offer another explanation of what you call “intuition.”
For the record, a logical explanation is that what you call intuition is exactly what machine learning is based on. A very large collection of observations that ultimately teaches the computer a pattern.
The thing is that the computer doesn’t know how to explain why it answers a particular question in one way or another. That is, unlike ordinary observation, there is no connection between a particular observation and the corresponding “scientific” conclusion.
Similarly, we could say that human learning is divided into conclusions that we can say we have drawn from concrete observation (empiricism), and conclusions that we simply “know” following the accumulation of observations that have occurred in our lives (perhaps “observation-based rationalism”).
I would love to hear your opinion on the subject.
thanks,
Assaf
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I use machine learning as inspiration, not as a comparison.
The argument is that, just as machine learning is based on many observations (and its result is a specific answer without direct logical inference from any concrete observation, but rather a kind of pattern inference from a set of observations), so too can human learning be accomplished from a collection of observations that he experiences throughout his life and learns patterns from which he will later call “intuition”.
Obviously, intuitions are also a product of accumulated experience. But it cannot be only that. Take, for example, the least squares technique that prefers a straight line. The software assumes a preference for a straight line and a least squares criterion, which is itself an a priori assumption that it did not learn from experience and training but was introduced into it by the programmer. Machine learning is also done on the basis of various assumptions.
If intuition stems only from cumulative experience (reminds me of the solution to Mill's problem about the origin of deduction), what about the non-empirical part? And I wonder why then the intuition of choice is real, and perhaps it is a collection of prior reasons, and only feels like a choice because it is not a current reason?
I did not write, nor do I think, that intuition is just cumulative experience. On the contrary, I wrote to the Hadiya that it is not.
That's my question, what's the part that's not there? And how do you tell that?
I don't know how to give a general criterion. As Yom wrote, the principle of causality, for example, is not learned from experience.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
