5 ms·
Are we sure what is being simulated here is cognitive? It seems to me merely mechanical. Not to deride the achievement of course.
by why-el 11y ago
Are we sure what is being simulated here is cognitive? It seems to me merely mechanical. Not to deride the achievement of course.
- iaw 11y agoI think we may be reaching a point where the line between mechanical and cognitive get blurred slightly. While I feel that this falls into the mechanical end of the spectrum because I understand how the model was created, RNN's demonstrate some very fascinating emergent behaviors that will become more complex as computational power increases. I wouldn't say that this is cognitive but it definitely learns to perform a skill in a similar fashion to intelligent beings which is remarkable. Extrapolating that behavior to self-awareness isn't likely however (of course this could lead to a philosophical debate)
- Aqueous 11y agoWouldn't this be an example of motor cognition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_cognition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_cognition)? Isn't this essentially what motor cognition does when we write?
- ericjang 11y agoMechanical vs. Cognitive are good adjectives! Maybe cognition is more mechanical than not.
- Aqueous 11y agoCouldn't this be seen as a kind of motor cognition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_cognition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_cognition)? Isn't this essentially what motor cognition does when we write? Perhaps this is more low-level than that, but it seems to me this neural network embodies the 'muscle memory' we develop when we practice handwriting.
- justonepost 11y agoAre we sure cognition isn't merely mechanical? Neural networks are pretty basic and yet they provide compelling products.
- romaniv 11y agoCognition is not "merely mechanical" by definition. If it was mechanical, there would be no special word to distinguish it from other reactions of the natural world.
- baddox 11y agoThat's certainly not true. The term "cognitive" could refer to a proper subset of the set of "mechanical" things. Terms for subsets are still useful.
- romaniv 11y agoSo I guess you're fine with calling books "merely paper" because they are a "subset" of paper-based products? And you're fine with calling people "merely animals" because they're a "subset" of animals? Human language is not based on set theory. There is a huge difference in connotations here.
- eidyia 11y agoHe said "Terms for subsets are still useful.", so I would guess no he is not fine
- baddox 11y agoContext is important, and the word "merely" can be interpreted in multiple ways. In the first case in this thread, I understood "merely mechanical" to mean "only mechanical," i.e containing nothing that is not mechanical. Using that definition, then humans are merely animals, because they're not something that's not an animal. Books are a bad example, because they do have things other than paper (like ink, glue, maybe a plastic or leather cover). You seem to be using "merely" to mean "nothing more specific than," which is a very different meaning that would not be appropriate when talking about things which are subsets of other things.
- romaniv 11y ago