a lot of/most eng esp materials science has been reverse engineering imho. Like when Europeans were figuring out porcelain.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest
sorry, forgot about the convo! In this sense would you consider modelling as reverse engineering?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @synapticlee
no cos to me modelling is about understanding. A model is not a copy. A direct copy of a brain is another brain. I can create
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @synapticlee
a human brain in 9 months. Does creating a child make me a good modeller? (Facetious question but perhaps needed.) No.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @synapticlee
To show you understand something you have to create a simpler version of it. A model that is identical to the phenomenon being
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @synapticlee
this is what "reverse engineering" does. At least in the sense that engineers use it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drjtwit @synapticlee
yes, a lot of modelling contains within it engineering principles. Especially in my case software eng principles.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
But the overarching goal is not as it would be if you reverse eng'ed a radio to eventually be able to create radios.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
AI and robotics which are heavily into engineering (incl rev eng) would be aiming to build a brain, cogsci isn't imho.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
but this is my *opinion* and not some kind of prescriptive rule which is what I think you think I am pushing. I'm more
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
than aware that enough modellers in cogsci do think of it as rev eng and do want to build a brain.
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.