is there a pointer to more discussion somewhere for those of us not in the know? thx!
-
-
Replying to @ctitusbrown @aeronlaffere
Are you aware of the Church-Turing thesis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis#Philosophical_implications …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @aeronlaffere
yep! that's a nice concise summary, thx.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ctitusbrown @aeronlaffere
OK, so recall that Turing defined the TM because he was modeling the women at BP. So TM is model of humans... and keep going from there.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Also bear in mind that best models of e.g., visual ventral pathway is a deep neural network. So try to dovetail that with the above... and
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
you get that the human mind computes. Yes, it's not a von Neuman machine but neither is a TM.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Also to be completely correct and historical it is COGNTIVE scientists not neuro-anythings that think the mind the computes. Neuro-people
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
have been slowly becoming more cognitive though, e.g., cog neurosci. But then again cogsci people have been becoming less cog, which is very
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
disappointing — although not directly relevant. Regardless, the ppl who tend to have a problem with this metaphor have various disagreements
-
-
with the terminology but even they generally would accept that e.g. ML techniques do vision like the brain does vision.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 4 more replies
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.