4 ms·

You can simulate these interconnections on a sufficiently powerful computing device. If you have enough FLOPs, the architecture (almost) doesn't matter.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
SemanticStrengh 4y ago
The architecture doesn't matter? What are you talking about? The belief that a brain simulation is just a graph made of nodes and links is cringe. We have zero idea what the program that runs in a node is, and we can't even simulate a single cell physically. Maybe one day experts we'll be able to prune what kind of proteins are useless for computation and are only needed for the survival of the cell but we are not there yet and we won't be there until ~a century given that this kind of research is inexistant you can't find a single paper that attempt to identify the relevant regions and proteins involved in neuronal coding. The only things we have for now beyond receptors are CGMP and CAMP and their modulation by phosphodiesterases. That's not enough, not at all. Although it's true the role of phosphodiesterases is understudied. And it's NOT about size and sCaLaBiLiTy lile deep blue propaganda make people think, the C.elegans has only 150 neurons in its CNS, 300 in total, and no one has built a simulation. It's true that some receptors are lacking and will only be found in the next decade because of underfunding (because of e.g deep blue) but even then it will not run.
- loceng 4y ago
  Curious if I'm replying to Elon Musk's account..
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    Musk lacks both erudition and rationality so I don't think you are. Besides he must be too busy selling his Luna /s
    - loceng 4y ago
      Had to look up the word erudition - nice word. Musk certainly is rational - whether that is always apparent or not is another question, and what level of certainty he requires before taking action is another question - what his risk tolerance is - but all things considered he makes more good and rational decisions than not. I suspect you're in part basing your judgement off of the shallow level of detail that you see in mainstream media or his Tweets, etc vs. ever seeing/reading much of his long-form writing and thinking to be able to understand his rationale; and perhaps also in part it's that your domain expertise don't overlap enough to be able to understand the other's decisions - to reverse energy his actions or shallow words to understand how it flows back to first principles, which he often mentions working from.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

The architecture doesn't matter? What are you talking about? The belief that a brain simulation is just a graph made of nodes and links is cringe. We have zero idea what the program that runs in a node is, and we can't even simulate a single cell physically. Maybe one day experts we'll be able to prune what kind of proteins are useless for computation and are only needed for the survival of the cell but we are not there yet and we won't be there until ~a century given that this kind of research is inexistant you can't find a single paper that attempt to identify the relevant regions and proteins involved in neuronal coding. The only things we have for now beyond receptors are CGMP and CAMP and their modulation by phosphodiesterases. That's not enough, not at all. Although it's true the role of phosphodiesterases is understudied. And it's NOT about size and sCaLaBiLiTy lile deep blue propaganda make people think, the C.elegans has only 150 neurons in its CNS, 300 in total, and no one has built a simulation. It's true that some receptors are lacking and will only be found in the next decade because of underfunding (because of e.g deep blue) but even then it will not run.

loceng 4y ago
Curious if I'm replying to Elon Musk's account..
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  Musk lacks both erudition and rationality so I don't think you are. Besides he must be too busy selling his Luna /s
  - loceng 4y ago
    Had to look up the word erudition - nice word. Musk certainly is rational - whether that is always apparent or not is another question, and what level of certainty he requires before taking action is another question - what his risk tolerance is - but all things considered he makes more good and rational decisions than not. I suspect you're in part basing your judgement off of the shallow level of detail that you see in mainstream media or his Tweets, etc vs. ever seeing/reading much of his long-form writing and thinking to be able to understand his rationale; and perhaps also in part it's that your domain expertise don't overlap enough to be able to understand the other's decisions - to reverse energy his actions or shallow words to understand how it flows back to first principles, which he often mentions working from.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]