[Probcogsci] Can we start a little early? Re: Next Week : Optimal Predictions in Everyday Cognition

[Roger Levy]

Well, I will personally be away Friday, so I think it is a matter you 
should settle with the rest of the group and anyone else in my lab who 
was planning on coming...

Vicente Malave wrote:
> I was sure that there was a reason we settled at 4: do you want to try
> to earlier thurs or friday, or I can just have it at 3 this week and
> you guys might miss it..
> 
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Roger Levy<rlevy at ling.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>> My lab meeting runs 2:30-4pm...
>>
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Vicente Malave wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks, turns out in my enthusiasm for Bayesian cognitive science I
>>> accidentally double-booked myself, and I have to be somewhere at 4.
>>> Are we okay with starting a little earlier? Either at 3 and have the
>>> full discussion, or at 3:30 and I'll just talk really fast. Let me
>>> know what works for you.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Vicente Malave<vicente.malave at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Next week we will be meeting (still 4pm, natcomp conference room), and
>>>> I will lead discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Two weeks ago, Ben asked "Where do the priors come from"? -The best
>>>> way to answer this is to look at a situation where we can determine
>>>> the prior, and ask if people's decisions are consistent with that. The
>>>> main paper we will be focusing on is "Optimal Predictions in Everyday
>>>> Cognition" by Griffiths and Tenenbaum.
>>>> http://cocosci.berkeley.edu/tom/papers/predictions.pdf
>>>> The task is to predict how long an event will last, given 1 data point
>>>> (the current duration). In this case for most of the events (i.e.
>>>> baking a cake) they were able to get a good prior. Its a very short
>>>> and simple paper, and we will work through all the math in the
>>>> appendix.
>>>>
>>>> This paper was inspired by
>>>> Implications of the Copernican principle for our future prospects, by
>>>> JR Gott III, published in Nature as a "Hypothesis"
>>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v363/n6427/abs/363315a0.html
>>>> which estimates a number of interesting things using a the same
>>>> argument, including how long the journal Nature will exist, the
>>>> possibilities of colonizing the galaxy, and if SETI will find
>>>> extraterrestrial life. Its pretty interesting, but quite a tangent,
>>>> maybe we won't discuss this.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, when gathering these I found a recent paper by Mike Mozer,
>>>> Hal Pashler, and Hadjar Homaei (Cogsci Journal) directly contradicting
>>>> the optimal predictions paper. Their argument seems to be that
>>>> Griffiths and Tenenbaum have fit the aggregate prediction across
>>>> subjects. If you find yourself screaming out against the target
>>>> article, perhaps your criticisms will be contained here.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~mozer/papers/reprints/MozerPashlerHomaei2008.pdf
>>>>
>>>> So, for next week, read the "Optimal Predictions" paper, and come
>>>> prepared to discuss. Other readings are supplementary.
>>>> --
>>>> Vicente Malave
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Vicente Malave
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Probcogsci mailing list
>>> Probcogsci at ling.ucsd.edu
>>> http://pidgin.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/probcogsci
>> --
>>
>> Roger Levy                      Email: rlevy at ling.ucsd.edu
>> Assistant Professor             Phone: 858-534-7219
>> Department of Linguistics       Fax:   858-534-4789
>> UC San Diego                    Web:   http://ling.ucsd.edu/~rlevy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>