Name collisions are possible, but in these cases the terms are explicitly modeled on the biological concepts.

It's not name “collision”, they took a biological name that somehow felt apt for what they where doing.

To continue oblios's analogy, when you use the “hibernation mode” of your OS, it only has superficial similarity with how manals hibernate during winter…

▲

ants_everywhere 3 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

littlestymaar 3 days ago | parent [-]

Well, your statements show that you are much less informed than you believe.

▲

ants_everywhere 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

As I've said, go look at the literature.

If you find in the literature any evidence for your theory that the people who invented these concepts believed they had no relationship to the biological concepts then please contribute it.

If you're unwilling to do the bare minimum required to take the opposite of my position then you aren't really defending a point of view you're just gainsaying reflexively.

▲

littlestymaar 3 days ago | parent [-]

Flexing about literature you haven't read is poor taste, especially since you are misrepresenting it.

▲

ants_everywhere 3 days ago | parent [-]

I have read it, I'm not the least bit misrepresenting it.

Since you're just resorting to deliberately lying about things I don't see a reason to pursue this further.

	▲	littlestymaar 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Why would anyone read the original perceptron paper in this century though? It's easy to know someone is bullshitting when they claim to have read 70 years old papers that aren't in themselves of any interest nowadays. (Like how many economists are quoting David Ricardo without having read it directly, because reading Ricardo is a very poor way of spending your time and energy). Funny how you spent lots of time in this thread talking shit to professionals of the fields and then take offence when someone call you like the fool you are.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]