have enough background in it to appreciate eg P=?NP, Gödel's I completeness, etc., and how they relate to cognition.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @ctitusbrown and
The mainstream philosophy of cognitive science sadly got some stuff very wrong, like that theoretically blind ML would create the best model
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Interesting, I'm curious where you see that idea expressed in mainstream cog sci.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
They thought some theory would account for cognition. But the best models are atheoretical currently.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
I would say that all models are theories, formal comp. models are just more specific than box/arrow. No ideas are a theoretical IMO
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bradpwyble @o_guest and
I would disagree, only the models where we have a hypothesis of how they work, are theories.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @josueortc @o_guest and
No, a model is a theory regardless of whether we understand how it works. All formal models have unexplored hypotheses. >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bradpwyble @josueortc and
< e.g. I have published models 10 yrs ago and am still discovering their latent hypotheses. It's a fertile ground for new work
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yeah, we disagree on this.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @bradpwyble and
But I don't think it's a problem. I see specifications of models as approximate theories. But model == theory? Not for me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 10 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.