Why do people keeping saying that probabilistic models do not provide understanding? We flew to Mars on a few simple principles applied to massive amounts of data. Comets aren't following sophisticated orbital plans, just F=ma.
Maybe (probably) all the sophistication of natural language is an emergent property of the pile on of lots of little similarly-shaped details like atoms. Sure, high level rules are nice approximations that satisfy our human craving for patterns, but that doesn't mean those patterns are how the brain really works, quite the opposite in fact.
High level models are illustrations, useful for game programmers and artists to efficiently create simulations and plausible imaginary creations. Low level models are how things actually work.
Maybe (probably) all the sophistication of natural language is an emergent property of the pile on of lots of little similarly-shaped details like atoms. Sure, high level rules are nice approximations that satisfy our human craving for patterns, but that doesn't mean those patterns are how the brain really works, quite the opposite in fact.
High level models are illustrations, useful for game programmers and artists to efficiently create simulations and plausible imaginary creations. Low level models are how things actually work.