I was just trying to make a correction. I've never heard you (or anyone else) refer to yourself as a neuroscientist. If you call yourself one now, I won't argue with you. I call myself a lot of things.
Depends on your criteria. Although my original training is not neuroscience, I have written a number of articles in the field & spoke today about my 2014 Science article The Atoms of Neural Computation, & how it relates to current AI. & My last book was The Future of the Brain.https://twitter.com/rhyolight/status/974746757832720384 …
-
-
-
no worries. if i had to self identify I would say cognitive scientist, but I exist to cross borders :)
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
That's makes you a great philosopher :) Actual neuroscience is a lot about tedious really local microbiology/ephys experiments. Unfortunately a lot of this research is not (or only vaguely) informed by any higher level theory of why those neurons are there.
-
After a few years in between deep-learning and neuroscience it is clear to me that your ideas live much easier in a NIPS participant brain than someone randomly met at SFN.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Gary, we're all neuroscientists now.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.