The most remarkable thing about the brain is that it wasn't designed. As a result, how the brain works is largely an irrelevant question.
-
-
to be fair, for people from the neurocience world and unaware of the machine learning world, those tweets could sound like an attack to them
-
to* (not "for")
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Beause Cognitive Neurosci is not just all about physical implementatinal analysis, your point is also important to the neurosci.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You could have quoted Feynman: 'We don't need to study the neurologic minutiae of living things to produce intelligent machines'.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
View on concepts such as attention, memory?Their implementation can vary but the concepts in themselves help formulate the problem
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As neuroscience didn't figure out yet how the brain works, ML should focus on instrumentalist approaches as Vapnik had argued.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Twitter hath no fury like a scientist scorned!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Try mixing fewer sweeping generalizations with more supporting facts. And don't forget historical AI arrogance: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/predicting-artificial-intelligence …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Don't get discouraged by the outrage, I think you are spot on with your point!

Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And hence wrt how brain came to be all along. In the quest of the notion of intell., that statement has universal strength.
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.