Talk:Neural coding: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:21, 9 July 2023

Latest revision as of 05:45, 27 January 2024

(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Neurosciencebanner shell|class=C|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Neuroscience|importance=High}}

}}

== figure on the right? ==

Line 177 ⟶ 179:

:[[User:2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27|@2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27]] one of the sources is even from a journal called "Speculations in Science and Technology," the claims should be toned down at the very least [[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27|2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27]] ([[User talk:2600:4041:2D1:5D00:2D7E:F622:A51:2C27|talk]]) 12:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

::Significantly the ''Speculations'' paper ('''1988''') has since been vindicated experimentally: Sun et al (2010), and Zangari et al (2021). [[User:Tegiap|Tegiap]] ([[User talk:Tegiap|talk]]) 04:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

:The relevant type of "expert" here would be an up-to-date epistemologist (Knowledge Theorist), such as Paul Thagard or Susan Haack. (Actually the main ideas here are NOT presented as "facts" but as well-supported ''hypotheses'', based on indirect published evidence -- difficult-or-impossible to observe directly. Meanwhile they are part of the only plausible account after >50 years of unsolved mystery regarding ''advanced'' cognition). [[User:Tegiap|Tegiap]] ([[User talk:Tegiap|talk]]) 04:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

:This entire section instantly smells of subjective original research, and the moment one's flavor of "philosophy of science" is invoked; it becomes hardcore pseudoscience. This section needs to be removed on grounds of OR and speculative crystal-balling on the wiki. A jarring break in tone and content from the rest of the article... and a hotspot for fringe discussion of unscientific ideologies.

:P.S

:There is no need for an expert here, as the section does not cite acceptable sources, nor makes any scientifically scrutable claim. And from the perspective of biophysics; this has no grounding whatsoever. [[Special:Contributions/2001:861:44C1:E970:78C8:5555:3D95:B21E|2001:861:44C1:E970:78C8:5555:3D95:B21E]] ([[User talk:2001:861:44C1:E970:78C8:5555:3D95:B21E|talk]]) 13:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The far-fetched theory is crackpot for the simple reason that binary-latent models in artificial intelligence, such as int LLMs, achieve what we would call intelligence as per the Turing test with two and more orders of magnitude fewer connections than the ones observed in the human brain. Therefore, as there is no need to explain a gap in the current model's capacity for intelligent behaviour, this theory has no legs to stand on. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A01:C22:B4CB:9800:2984:3A37:5405:2222|2A01:C22:B4CB:9800:2984:3A37:5405:2222]] ([[User talk:2A01:C22:B4CB:9800:2984:3A37:5405:2222#top|talk]]) 02:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->