Also to be completely correct and historical it is COGNTIVE scientists not neuro-anythings that think the mind the computes. Neuro-people
-
-
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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 -
Replying to @o_guest @aeronlaffere
so do I correctly infer that researchers in this area (e.g. you :) do think the brain does compute "like a computer"?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I'd say this is circular. What a "computer" is constantly shifts as we get new ideas. Core principle remains: they're modeled on people.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @morungos @ctitusbrown and
This isn't true. The Lambda Calculus and M-recursive functions can't be meaningfully said to be modeled on people. Yet all found to be equal
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sir_deenicus @morungos and
In "expressive" power compared to Turing Machines. Saying it's a computer is short hand for: description of operation effectively calculable
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sir_deenicus @ctitusbrown and
No it isn’t. A computer was a person. They worked out data tables. The *electronic computer* was a later invention modelled on that job.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @morungos @sir_deenicus and
This is how I put it in 1997pic.twitter.com/i1QwJAPXuf
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes
Yeah, of course they were people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer …
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.