Re:Artificial brains help understand real brains
by foobarqux on Saturday June 10, 2023 @11:38AM
(#36271444)
> The scientific way to dismiss that theory would be proving it wrong.
That's completely the opposite of what is supposed to happen: You are supposed to provide evidence that it is right, not assume it is right until proven wrong.
> just that they do similar things in similar ways
Completely baseless. Neural nets can be trained on all kinds of phenomenon, the weather for example. No one says that the weather works like a neural net. For the same reason there is no reason to say (without specific evidence) that the brain works like a neural net despite producing the same output.
> People seem to struggle to articulate what it is that is missing exactly that would prove that theory wrong.
Again there is no evidence that it is right. When there is no evidence that it is right there is no burden to show that it is wrong.
That's completely the opposite of what is supposed to happen: You are supposed to provide evidence that it is right, not assume it is right until proven wrong.
> just that they do similar things in similar ways
Completely baseless. Neural nets can be trained on all kinds of phenomenon, the weather for example. No one says that the weather works like a neural net. For the same reason there is no reason to say (without specific evidence) that the brain works like a neural net despite producing the same output.
> People seem to struggle to articulate what it is that is missing exactly that would prove that theory wrong.
Again there is no evidence that it is right. When there is no evidence that it is right there is no burden to show that it is wrong.