astonished that anyone knowledgeable could claim that neural nets are (obviously) an “abstraction of neural processing” when we don’t yet know how brains work. if you don’t know how Y works you can’t really speak with certainty about whether X is an abstraction of Y. Period.https://twitter.com/tyrell_turing/status/1200072223299657728 …
-
But as far as I've seen in this convo the claim is not that ANNs are a super useful abstraction that will yield the same behavior as brains (what you seem to getting at in second part of tweet), just that they are AN abstraction from brains.
issue is whether they are a correct/useful abstraction from a proper understanding of something we don’t understand. i just don’t see how methodologically we could be CERTAIN about that in our current state of ignorance.
-
-
The tweet you replied to is: "... you may believe ANNs miss critical biological details, cool, that's a legit position to take. But why pretend that ANNs are not an abstraction of neural processing?... " So, no claim as to usefulness/correctness, just that it's an abstraction.
-
i took it to be a claim that it is a bona fide abstraction. (& some tweets tried to argue that.) if you just want to claim it is an *attempt* at an abstraction, fine. but the road to neuroscience is littered with many failed attempts, hydraulics, telephone exchanges, etc.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.