ArticleCognitive processing2021
Nonhuman rationality: a predictive coding perspective.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
How can we rethink 'rationality' in the wake of animal and artificial intelligence studies? Can nonhuman systems be rational in any nontrivial sense? In this paper, we propose that all organisms, under certain circumstances, exhibit rationality to a diverse degree and aspect in the sense of the standard picture (SP): Their inferential processes conform to logic and probability rules. We first show that according to Calvo and Friston (J R Soc Interface 14(131):20170096, 2017) and Orlandi (2018), all biological systems must embody a top-down process (active inference) to minimize free energy. Next, based on Maddy's (Second philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007; The logical must: Wittgenstein on logic, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014) analysis, we argue that this inferential process conforms to logic and probability rules; thus, it satisfies the SP, which explains the rudimentary logic and arithmetic (e.g., categorizing and numbering) found among pigeons and mice. We also hold that the mammalian brain is only one among many ways of implementing rationality. Finally, we discuss data from microorganisms to support this view.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33404900What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.