5 ms·
That's not a informative upper bound. We already know most of those atoms are not contributing to it's computational complexity.
by qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
That's not a informative upper bound. We already know most of those atoms are not contributing to it's computational complexity.
- vixen99 5y agoits
- jjtheblunt 5y agowhy is that known?
- acchow 5y agoHow do we know this?
- not2b 5y agoRead the article. They accurately modeled the biological neuron's behavior with about 1000 'neurons'. They didn't need quintillions of neurons. So clearly the computational complexity is vastly lower than the number of atoms or molecules.
- jhayward 5y agoI believe they modeled the behavior of a model of a neuron, not an actual neuron. Models are intrinsically simplifications of the reality.
- not2b 5y agoBut that model represented the input/output behavior of the neuron. Of course it doesn't represent the behavior of every single atom of the neuron itself, but that isn't relevant to its computational behavior.