[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
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
-
hahaha linguistics omg what a quagmire of poop
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.