[nostrebored]

Using neural networks as a machine learning concept to explain actual concepts in Neuroscience is a huge overstep. People have always thought the most advanced technology can be analogous to cognition, see steam engines and clocks.

[CuriouslyC]

Artificial neural networks are much closer to neurons and brains than economic models are to markets, but we give economists a pass. Perhaps we should stop listening to them and revoke their publishing privileges?

Anyhow, the point wasn't to say Brains == ANN, rather it was to show how learning too quickly has consequences in other models of learning. This was mostly so people wouldn't just dismiss the idea out of hand as having no justification (which people seem to want to do regardless).

[nostrebored]

Really? I think that we have a much better understanding of markets than Neuroscience. The human brain is an immensely complex system. We just figured out that lungs may produce the majority of our blood cells -- do you really have so much faith in a field that routinely misrepresents results to fit their hypotheses?

[OisinMoran]

Your second sentence is definitely true and very interesting but maybe you'd agree that the gap between our most advanced technology and the brain is decreasing to the point where this will eventually be right.

[princeb]

> gap between our most advanced technology and the brain is decreasing

first we need to understand the brain.

[psyc]

And those were progressively better analogies. These are great terms to think in, and it's not an overstep. It doesn't have to be absolutely true to be very useful for understanding.