@daniel_eth, @AdamMarblestone, @neuro_data thank you for your thoughtful ideas, I really appreciate your insights!
-
-
Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
It's because physicists can agree more easily on what matters, which is in turn because they understand fundamentals -- as we can measure more fundamentals in biology (e.g., full connectome) and have more theoretical convergence (e.g., AI/learning<>brain), we'll see more in bio
-
It’s because experiments are so expensive, they have no choice
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
can be explained in part by the contexts/properties of systems studied in these fields. Systems studied in physics are often studied in isolation, while biological systems are typically studied in relation to other systems (organ-to-body, organism-to-ecology, etc.)
-
@johncarlosbaez has a nice explanation of this in the preface of this blog post explaining Brendan Fong's research:https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/open-and-interconnected-systems/ …
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I wouldn't be surprised if some of this was psychological - physicists tend to be a bit more "reductive" in their thinking, while biologists think in somewhat more "holistic" terms. Not super surprising that the more holistic thinkers would favor decentralization.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
as others have kind of alluded to, biology is inherently more "embodied". Physics is somewhat easier to take slices from, sort of like elements of computer science. OTOH many bio systems *must* mitigate more holistically & subjectively. Non-integration less an option.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.