Re:The brain as a universal learning machine (2015)
by mdp2021 on Sunday October 31, 2021 @05:27AM
(#29055706)
I really believe that in this communicational context - in these pages -, statements 'A is B' should always be accompanied by relevant sufficient (for the context) justification. There is legitimately no 'A is B', there is only 'One can state that A is B owing to C'.
Otherwise, anyone here could state 'Neurons function through lightbeams (full-stop)', 'Neutrinos are Leibniz's monads (full-stop)', 'Filippa's Republic is better than Western Democracy (full-stop)', 'Smith is wrong (full-stop)', 'The ratio of circumference and diameter is clever (full-stop)'...
If anybody stated 'A is B (full-stop)', another could come up with "No it isn't". We would be at Monty Python's Argument Sketch - a parody of the "drily strictly professional" soulless¹ spoilt cheap service associated (in some cultures) to brothels.
Otherwise, anyone here could state 'Neurons function through lightbeams (full-stop)', 'Neutrinos are Leibniz's monads (full-stop)', 'Filippa's Republic is better than Western Democracy (full-stop)', 'Smith is wrong (full-stop)', 'The ratio of circumference and diameter is clever (full-stop)'...
If anybody stated 'A is B (full-stop)', another could come up with "No it isn't". We would be at Monty Python's Argument Sketch - a parody of the "drily strictly professional" soulless¹ spoilt cheap service associated (in some cultures) to brothels.