hence why in my opinion it's called reverse engineering. Because goal is to (re) build original item.
I feel like you both (?) or at least just D thinks that this the first time I have come across this argument. It's a
-
-
I lost what the argument was - can you summarise? Rev eng is not science? Or rev eng is not understanding?
-
I stopped when I realised I had no idea what the argument was.
-
I perhaps mistakenly thought given the context that the reference was being made to rev eng == cogsci
-
Altho I'm kind of really exhausted (by life not this exchange specifically). I was stating how I see things, which it
-
seems to me is very diff to you both. That's great though as I also believe sci is not a monolith and shouldn't be.
-
for context: my objection is that I think solving the problem with understanding NNs – recallhttps://twitter.com/o_guest/status/785731096080183296 …
-
is not solved by doing more software/hardware reverse/forward engineering but actually doing some science.
-
oh that I'm happy to agree with! As for the dennett thing, not really - just some claim he made about linguistics
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
notorious one that has a long history within cogsci. I am interested in your views butI am pretty sure after 7 years
-
that I know well where I stand (obv open to change). If you've experience with this argument I do disagree w Dennett.
-
I couldn't work out was Dennett was saying so I'm impressed you disagree with them.
-
well, it's not the biggest shocker as he's very easy to disagree with when you see him present his work – hahaha
-
was at a talk a few years ago and someone I knew heckled him for something he said!
-
he is pretty annoying to be honest given how he behaves not even specifically for any of his views
-
do you recall what he was heckled for?
End of conversation
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.