3 ms·
Yes, this seems to be what the symbolists always forget. We don’t use symbolism like this, we just have very dense neural connections that emerge from scale and
by mountainriver 2y ago
Yes, this seems to be what the symbolists always forget. We don’t use symbolism like this, we just have very dense neural connections that emerge from scale and approximate it
- suddenlybananas 2y agoThat's not really what symbolists actually argue. Read Fodor and Pylylshyn 1988 to better understand how symbolists view the relationship between symbolic representation and connectionist models. What you're saying is akin to saying there's no point in doing neuroscience or trying to understand neural-networks as its just particle physics deep down.
- sitkack 2y agoConnectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Connectionism-and-cognitive-architecture%3A-A-Fodor-Pylyshyn/56cbfcbfffd8c54bd8477d10b6e0e17e097b97c7 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Connectionism-and-cogn... Fodor and Pylyshyn's Critique of Connectionism and the Brain as Basis of the Mind https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.14736 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.14736
- WhitneyLand 2y agoSo if inventing the airplane how long should one stick with a flapping bird wing design?
- nextos 2y agoThat is not a good analogy. Symbolism has given us lots of useful things, including SAT/SMT and theorem provers.
- WhitneyLand 2y agoThe point is that while biology has been a great source of inspiration toward technical advances it’s only a guide, it can’t guarantee there isn’t a better way.