> And yet, artificial neural networks ARE an approximation of how biological neurons work For a non-vapid/non-vacuous definition of 'approximation' this is not

> And yet, artificial neural networks ARE an approximation of how biological neurons work For a non-vapid/non-vacuous definition of 'approximation' this is not true at all. It is well understood that (i) back-propagation is biologically infeasible in the brain (ii) output 'voltage' is a transformed weighted average of the input 'voltage' -- is not how neurons operate. (ii) is in the 'not even wrong' category. Neurons operate in terms of spikes and frequency and quiescence of spiking. If you are interested any undergrad text in neurobiology will help correct the wrong notions.