3 ms·
Certainly not in the deeper senses of the phrase. If we take the phrase neural network to mean, "a series of deeply and widely interconnected elements which as
by jo_ 12y ago
Certainly not in the deeper senses of the phrase.
If we take the phrase neural network to mean, "a series of deeply and widely interconnected elements which assist or inhibit the transmission of signals to one another, activated by the inputs exceeding a threshold," then I think there's a pretty good amount of overlap.
I understand there's a temporal signaling model (pulses at varying rates, not steady state signals) and stochastic information (like random firing and a bunch of noise), but once we abstract out the axons, dendrites, and neurochemicals, is there another piece of functional equipment which drastically effects things? How does our simplified view that small, individually stupid pieces, acting in concert to produce complex behavior differ from the real brain?
- maaku 12y agoThe point is more that you can't abstract neurons away into a simple "analog in, digital out" pseudo-transistor with fixed connections and expect that to describe how the brain works. The brain makes active use of all those details you are abstracting away, in ways that would make your model's predictions differ from reality.
- Tenobrus 12y agoAre you saying there is literally nothing in the brain that can be abstracted away? This seems like a very bold claim.
- maaku 12y agoNo, absolutely not. I'm saying that a "neural net" a la McCulloch doesn't accurately model how computation is performed by the brain. You can't accurately model human thinking by recording the brain's connections as a classical neural net. That's all I'm saying.