[160 char brevity!] specifically, agree that sci =/= eng. not sure if rev eng is in set of eng. but if it is, agreed sci =/=rev eng
-
-
Replying to @synapticlee
a lot of/most eng esp materials science has been reverse engineering imho. Like when Europeans were figuring out porcelain.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
the baby comment is immensely distracting. they are made neither by copying nor by reverse engineering.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drjtwit @synapticlee
but they would be the best model for a previous participant. ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
notorious one that has a long history within cogsci. I am interested in your views butI am pretty sure after 7 years
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
that I know well where I stand (obv open to change). If you've experience with this argument I do disagree w Dennett.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
One thing I am not super in the mood to do is rehash every point again & again over twitter as it's really hard to do.
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.