I'm trying to remember where I learned about it. It all happened after the Minsky book on Perceptrons. Does Dreyfus talk about it in What Computers Still Can't Do? I read a really good history of it at some point!
-
-
Replying to @firepile
I remember it blew my fucking mind- I'd been taught propaganda basically by Fodor/McLaughlin in the early 90s, and later learned connectionism wasn't in principle incapable of certain computations, but single-layer networks were. And once Minsky published, no one would fund them.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @firepile
I know that I’ve read this too!!! But have no idea where...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @firepile
Wait...is it in here?!https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243665925_Making_a_mind_versus_modeling_the_brain_Artificial_intelligence_back_at_a_branchpoint …
4 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @firepile
the dupuy book is very good, but see also this one for more recent coverage: https://www.amazon.com/Cybernetic-Brain-Sketches-Another-Future/dp/0226667901/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+cybernetic+brain&qid=1558032005&s=gateway&sr=8-1 …
6 replies 2 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @firepile
The Dupuy book you refer to is The Mechanization of Mind, right? Great book - I wrote a review of it, comparing the rejection of the 'perceptron' to the rejection of the Bohm model in physics. An interesting case study of a 'biased theory choice'
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @EyeOnThePitch @firepile
Yes, that's the book. That's an interesting comparison -- to the rejection of Bohm's model. Can you post a link to the review? Would like to read that.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @firepile
Sure, Evan. It only came out in a refereed conference proceeding but I can send you the PDF from the proceeding's collection.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EyeOnThePitch @evantthompson
Can I get in on this, too? Sounds great.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @firepile @evantthompson
Sure, hope I don't embarrass myself! Roughly, the claim was that both were rejected for 'extra-theoretical reasons' ( (influential figures, misunderstandings, key theoretical claims confused))locking the trajectories of theoretical development in both domains into one direction
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
Great, I look forward to reading it.
-
-
Can I get a copy too,
@EyeOnThePitch!!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @evantthompson and
Slightly related: I liked the intro part of a paper by Robert Shaw about Simon/Gibson. he recounts how in the 1960s two versions of CogSci dominated: Carnegie-Mellon modelled human intelligence, MIT just built the hardest machines. But at CalTech it was always about extending/1
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes - 20 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.