3 ms·

You are arguing against argument by analogy with an analogy. In any case none of those analogies are entirely wrong, they are just increasingly more accurate.

You are arguing against argument by analogy with an analogy. In any case none of those analogies are entirely wrong, they are just increasingly more accurate. An eighteenth century person couldn't have understood computers, so clockwork is the closest analogy.

disgruntledphd2 11y ago
I mean no disrespect, but you are making the same argument that those people did :) I think the more general truth is that we humans explain using analogy, and the brain is complex, so we use something else that isn't fully understood by most.
- MarkPNeyer 11y ago
  > but you are making the same argument that those people did of course that person is. GP is saying "each model is a better approximation, but still an approximation" - and you are saying "they all said that, and they were all wrong." but are they getting _less_ wrong over time?
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    Technically they're all the same Turing machine analogy. (Recurrent neural nets aren't really Turing complete, but they become Turing complete if you add repeatable state logic.) It's just that the later analogies include some hint of emergent properties that are missing from the earlier ones. Is the brain really a Turing machine? I doubt it's the right model, but obviously I have no way to prove this. But here's a question - if the brain is a symbolic data processor, what exactly does it process? This sounds like it should have an obvious answer, but the more you think about it (ironically...) the less obvious the answer becomes.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
coldtea 11y ago
>You are arguing against argument by analogy with an analogy No, he's arguing against a specific argument by analogy with an analogy. Or rather, he's not even doing that. He's arguing not against "argument by analogy" (in general) or a "specific argument by analogy" (in particular), but against an analogy bare from argument.

disgruntledphd2 11y ago

I mean no disrespect, but you are making the same argument that those people did :) I think the more general truth is that we humans explain using analogy, and the brain is complex, so we use something else that isn't fully understood by most.

MarkPNeyer 11y ago
> but you are making the same argument that those people did of course that person is. GP is saying "each model is a better approximation, but still an approximation" - and you are saying "they all said that, and they were all wrong." but are they getting _less_ wrong over time?
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Technically they're all the same Turing machine analogy. (Recurrent neural nets aren't really Turing complete, but they become Turing complete if you add repeatable state logic.) It's just that the later analogies include some hint of emergent properties that are missing from the earlier ones. Is the brain really a Turing machine? I doubt it's the right model, but obviously I have no way to prove this. But here's a question - if the brain is a symbolic data processor, what exactly does it process? This sounds like it should have an obvious answer, but the more you think about it (ironically...) the less obvious the answer becomes.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

coldtea 11y ago

>You are arguing against argument by analogy with an analogy No, he's arguing against a specific argument by analogy with an analogy. Or rather, he's not even doing that. He's arguing not against "argument by analogy" (in general) or a "specific argument by analogy" (in particular), but against an analogy bare from argument.