6 ms·
This kind of question is meaningless, and I’m pretty sure it comes from the old view of neurons being somewhat akin to a 1-1 or many-1 digital switch (it isn’t)
by tonymillion 3y ago
This kind of question is meaningless, and I’m pretty sure it comes from the old view of neurons being somewhat akin to a 1-1 or many-1 digital switch (it isn’t).
In fact, we currently don’t even know the full extent of the types of neurons in the brain or the way they function and interact [1]
There are neurons that only fire when a certain percentage of their inputs are stimulated, some that have a temporal component to their firing and more.
In all the computer neural net research I read I never saw an implementation that truly explored or implemented more than a few types (like 3-4) of neuronal input and only one type of output
[1] https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-anatomy/types-neurons https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-anatomy/types-neurons
- agumonkey 3y agoI think there's gonna be a new wave of idea, I see more and more concepts related to distributed / massive parts related through their topologies / tissue like structures.
- ethn 3y agoYes Walter Pitt's proposal, which he disproved. But we know the prefrontal cortex is capable of simulating a turing machine, or any machine for that matter.
- mjan22640 3y agoI dont think this is a problem. The computer nrural networks are closer to a single biological neuron than to a biological neural network. That provides tighter coupling. Long distance generalized "connections" can materialize as weight chains, recurence can provide timing.