3 ms·
> 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 approx
by 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 agoTechnically 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.