4 ms·
Not trying to be pedantic, but: > We don't simulate a bird's bones and muscles Isn't really true, is it? We simulate the bones with an airframe, and we simul
by blastro 2y ago
Not trying to be pedantic, but:
> We don't simulate a bird's bones and muscles
Isn't really true, is it?
We simulate the bones with an airframe, and we simulate the muscles with a prop/jet. The wings are similarly simulated.
- exe34 2y agoyes, the wings flap. the airframes are made of bone.
- suriya-ganesh 2y agoThe type of propulsion is not, though. Nothing in nature has 360° rotatory motion. Airplane is not an exact simulation of a bird. Only an approximation
- dboreham 2y agohttps://phys.org/news/2018-04-bacterial-propeller.html https://phys.org/news/2018-04-bacterial-propeller.html
- r2_pilot 2y agoA more suitable word would be that we "emulate" the bones, etc., rather than simulate, which to me implies that you are testing against a replica of a thing. But I don't really think emulate works here because they're not especially analogous; these are fundamentally different approaches to flight so any form following the function would be incidental at best.
- blastro 2y agoThat's fair.
- Jabrov 2y agoI was thinking OP meant more simulate as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWorm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWorm ie. a complete bottom-up simulation at the cellular level By your definition of simulate, I think artificial neural networks are absolutely on their way to simulate intelligence