|
|
|
|
|
|
by colllectorof
3690 days ago
|
|
|
If you want to be convincing, give us links to actual neurology research, no to Hinton "explaining away" objections of actual neuroscientists to his suppositions about human brain by making more suppositions. It's pretty obvious that he made up his mind decades ago and isn't going to be critical of his own theories. |
|
|
1) You have a working system. You know only bits and pieces of how it works.
2) You build a crude model of the system. It kinds of sucks at doing the stuff the System is doing well.
3) People over several decades apply tons and tons of task-specific optimizations and modifications to your model. Those modifications have nothing to do with the original system, but because of them the model finally achieves good performance at some tasks.
4) You use the hype generated by #3 to claim that you were right all along and that your model captures the essential aspects of the original system.
5) When people point out that your model works in ways that clearly don't match the original system, you make a claim that it's the original system that approximates your model, not the other way around. Without any observations of the original system supporting your claim.