12 ms·
I would argue that this is pretty disingenuous (as is most connectomics research I suppose) since its implying we have a fully wired connectome of the fly thats
by ramraj07 29d ago
I would argue that this is pretty disingenuous (as is most connectomics research I suppose) since its implying we have a fully wired connectome of the fly thats actually meaningful.
- squibonpig 29d agoWhy isn't it and what do they have? I'm not really informed on this stuff.
- melagonster 29d agoWe only know which neurons are connected, not the weights.
- solid_fuel 29d agoMore than that, real neurons don’t behave anything like the ones we model in neural networks - real ones signal with pulses, in a manner where the timing seems as significant as the magnitude of the impulse. Typically simulated neural networks use continuous analog values instead of pulses and a sigmoid function to shape the output. Basically, the “wiring” might be the same but nothing beyond that is. - - - Actually, I may have spoken too soon. Looking over the code this does look like it implements spikey activation, which is more similar to living neurons. You are correct they don’t have the original weights though - in as much as the concept maps to biology. I am curious if this has a way to dynamically modify the weights as it runs - I consider that a major missing gap between real brains and computer simulated neural networks.
- idiotsecant 29d agoI feel like probably a graph of sigmoid or whatever weights of sufficient size can probably model a network of biological neurons signaling frequency and phase and magnitude.
- loa_in_ 29d agoIt won't be confirmed until we record all the stimuli and outputs of a fruit fly's nervous system in normal environment.
- jeffybefffy519 29d agoIsnt there also a theory and some evidence that the connectome is not enough to model a brain. Based on the fact that butterlies connectome dissolves during metamorphosis to butterfly but it still remembers things from before that stage of life.
- ben_w 29d agoThat says the butterflies have a back up mechanism, it doesn't say that connectomes are insufficient for modelling running neural processes. We don't actually know what is sufficient for modelling neural processes until we do it. But we can't really do that until we figure out how to read all the connection strengths.
- ACCount37 29d agoNo, the nervous system is one of those things that don't fully dissolve. Partial info retention is perfectly consistent with partial connectome retention.
- melagonster 29d agoWe also have the connectome of Nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans), but researchers lack funding to determine the weights, too.
- inigyou 29d agoButterflies dissolving is an urban legend. They don't dissolve. Caterpillars have wing stubs inside them. Someone probably cut open a chrysalis and saw goop come out, so they assumed it was just a bag of goop. But goop would also come out of a cut open caterpillar, or a cut open butterfly, or a cut open human.
- Induane 29d agoThey do kind of dissolve; we have better imaging now and can watch. What isn't true is that it completely dissolves. There are parts that don't and are part of the rescaffolding process. One of those bits that does not completely dissolve is a chunk of the brain; it is probably via this that memory persists through the metamorphosis. Wing stubs are present from the beginning as well as you noted.