Neuroscientists don't understand cognition, rather they understand how parts of the biological brain function. These are subjects that only partially overlap.
Is there any siloed field that can claim an understanding of general intelligence? I highly doubt it. It's an interdisciplinary problem where most of its practitioners are without an academic home.
Do deep learning practitioners understand general cognition? I doubt it. They may partially understand their connectionist architectures but these are just a sliver of capabilities of what's available to a general intelligence.
Do cognitive psychologists understand general intelligence? They are indeed familiar with human behavior but that familiarity does not imply an understanding of how this behavior becomes emergent. Perhaps they are relevant for creating good Turing tests.
Top of my head, the most promising fields to understand general intelligence can be found in 'artificial life' and 'computational linguistics'. Also, there's a lot of new math that can serve as formal scaffolding into this emergent area of inquiry.
There's a lot of promising stuff emerging and they don't look anything like the previous more established approaches on understanding human cognition. It's time to embrace what's new and throwing away a ton of excess baggage.
Unfortunately, too many fields have invested too much in honing their craft on antiquated technologies. Ignore these people. It's wise to ignore people who invested in Yahoo when Google was still in its infancy. Be prepared to pick the winners and not those who embrace legacy.
History shows that those who defect early from legacy approaches are the ones to reap the biggest upside.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
