100 billion neurons
Locked
 
|
A typical human brain has about 100 billion (10^11=100.000.000.000) neurons, but each neuron follows only very simple integrate-and-fire rules. If we distribute a comparatively simple program on 1.000.000 machines (which is only a small fraction of the Internet, Google alone has between 50.000 and 100.000 machines, and SETI at home has over five million volunteers), and each is responsible for the simulation of 100.000 neurons, then we come close to the capacity of the human brain. How long will it take until we can build such a system and connect it successfully to the real world (through a robot) or a realistic virtual world (through an agent) ? I guess it won't be long. As Greg Egan describes in his novel "Permutation City", at first the simulation may be much slower than reality, but enough computers are already there. What do you think ? -J. |
|
|
"A typical human brain has about 100 billion (10^11=100.000.000.000)
neurons, but each neuron follows only very simple integrate-and-fire rules.' Comment: this implies a discrete ensemble of discrete events. But isn't each neuron's likelihood of firing dependent on the solution in which it sits, the gradients of ions, and proximities to tier multiple firing neurons? In which case the brain is an infinite ensemble of an infinity of analog events. doug ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Interesting remark, but I don't think it really works this way. It is not an infinite ensemble of an infinite number of analog events. A neuron fires or not - a boolean event - and spikes are certainly discrete events. The ion channels, the gradients of ions, and all the chemical substances are only the "hardware" of the brain. One could compare it to transistors, wires, etc. If the genes could produce transistors instead of proteins, they would perhaps use digital circuits. However, the interesting part seems to be the software, esp. the code which is used (if there is any). There are of course at least four different levels of modelling, from boolean networks and sigmoid networks to spiking networks, see Fig. 3 in http://www.vs.uni-kassel.de/~fromm/Articles/LI.pdf -J. -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of doug Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 2:24 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons Comment: this implies a discrete ensemble of discrete events. But isn't each neuron's likelihood of firing dependent on the solution in which it sits, the gradients of ions, and proximities to tier multiple firing neurons? In which case the brain is an infinite ensemble of an infinity of analog events. doug |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-3
I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very interesting consequences of this. - Martin |
|
|
I recollect that some years ago the AI community (at a AAAI conference I
attended) claimed that each of the 10^11 neurons also had on average 10^4 connections resulting in a 10^15 computational 'size' for the brain. They also predicted we'd have a computer of similar power by 2015. Furrthermore it also stuck in my mind that 40% of the brain was claimed to be involved in vision (including reading). So these estimates lead one to think that it's going to be quite close to 2015 before we have a system with just the power of human vision. Being able to program such a machine was not part of the discussion at the time, which is a big question to me. Thanks Robert Cordingley www.cirrillian.com Martin C. Martin wrote: >I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > >He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to >calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget >the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very >interesting consequences of this. > >- Martin > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Martin C. Martin-2
On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Martin C. Martin wrote: > I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > I was in Ames, IA at their VR symposium in April and Ray Kurzweil was the capstone speaker and was promoting his recent book, The Singularity is Near... I don't agree with most of what he concludes but I do believe most of his facts are right on... I scored a signed copy... read about 2/3 of it before I got tired of thinking about how everyone probably wants to live forever... at least Kurzweil does, even (especially) if as a disembodied digital version... - Steve |
|
|
In reply to this post by Martin C. Martin-2
Back in the 1980's Hans and I had offices next to each other in the
Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon. Over a period of a couple of years we had numerous arguments about whether machines could realize consciousness; whether a human mind could be transferred to a machine, etc. I remember saying that if somehow my "mind" were transferred from my body to some robot--which I felt was impossible--it might be that everyone else would agree that it was a remarkable likeness but that I would be gone. Hans replied that I undervalued myself--that I am software not hardware. After many arguments along these lines I said, "Hans, I now understand why you don't understand what I am saying about consciousness--you don't have it." This was all in good humor and later when I was teaching a course in AI to MBA students I invited Hans to continue our debate in class. A good time was had by all, I hope. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell) Santa Fe, NM 87505 wimberly3 at earthlink.net -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Martin C. Martin Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:16 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very interesting consequences of this. - Martin ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
I hesitate to point this out... Wait a minute, that 's not correct. I
*rush* to point this out: The conversation has become a bit neurotic by now, wouldn't you all agree? --Doug (Still on vacation, somewhere in Utah's canyon country today). On 7/10/06, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at earthlink.net> wrote: > > Back in the 1980's Hans and I had offices next to each other in the > Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon. Over a period of a couple of > years we had numerous arguments about whether machines could realize > consciousness; whether a human mind could be transferred to a machine, > etc. I remember saying that if somehow my "mind" were transferred from > my body to some robot--which I felt was impossible--it might be that > everyone else would agree that it was a remarkable likeness but that I > would be gone. Hans replied that I undervalued myself--that I am > software not hardware. After many arguments along these lines I said, > "Hans, I now understand why you don't understand what I am saying about > consciousness--you don't have it." This was all in good humor and later > when I was teaching a course in AI to MBA students I invited Hans to > continue our debate in class. A good time was had by all, I hope. > > Frank > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell) > Santa Fe, NM 87505 wimberly3 at earthlink.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > Behalf Of Martin C. Martin > Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:16 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > > He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to > calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget > the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very > interesting consequences of this. > > - Martin > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > -- Doug Roberts, RTI International droberts at rti.org doug at parrot-farm.net 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060710/c94aa8e3/attachment.html |
|
|
On Jul 10, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > I hesitate to point this out... Wait a minute, that 's not correct.? I > *rush* to point this out:? The conversation has become a bit neurotic > by now, wouldn't you all agree? > ? > --Doug (Still on vacation, somewhere in Utah's canyon country today). Wait, wait, the canyon country *I* know of in Utah doesn't have *any* wireless access. Doug's AI back in NM is speaking on his behalf! Let's add Paranoid (me) to Neurotic while we are at it. > > ? > On 7/10/06, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at earthlink.net> wrote: Back in > the 1980's Hans and I had offices next to each other in the >> Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon.??Over a period of a couple of >> years we had numerous arguments about whether machines could realize >> consciousness; whether a human mind could be transferred to a machine, >> etc.??I remember saying that if somehow my "mind" were transferred >> from >> my body to some robot--which I felt was impossible--it might be that >> everyone else would agree that it was a remarkable likeness but that I >> would be gone.??Hans replied that I undervalued myself--that I am >> software not hardware.??After many arguments along these lines I said, >> "Hans, I now understand why you don't understand what I am saying >> about >> consciousness--you don't have it."??This was all in good humor and >> later >> when I was teaching a course in AI to MBA students I invited Hans to >> continue our debate in class.??A good time was had by all, I hope. >> >> Frank >> >> --- >> Frank C. Wimberly >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz??????????????(505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 >> (cell) >> Santa Fe, NM 87505?????????? wimberly3 at earthlink.net >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto: friam-bounces at redfish.com] On >> Behalf Of Martin C. Martin >> Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:16 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons >> >> I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: >> >> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 >> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 >> >> He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to >> calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer."??I forget >> the date, but it's not far.??He also talks about a number of very >> interesting consequences of this. >> >> - Martin >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > -- > Doug Roberts, RTI International > droberts at rti.org > doug at parrot-farm.net > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - > Cell============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3608 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060713/99c1d33e/attachment.bin |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly
I'm inclined to agree. The model I use is nonlinear fluid dynamics.
Say you've got a thought which you began thinking when you were young. That thought is a fluid in motion. Over the course of your life you revisit certain ideas and revise certain opinions. The motion continues for decades. The way you think is like an information processing system which evolves over the course of your life, and it's true enough to call that software, not hardware, but the flow of data through that system is entirely organic, and creating an exact copy of a given flow in nonlinear fluid dynamics is impossible. The structure of your mode of thinking -- your "software" -- is shaped tremendously by the things that you think about; therefore replicating the processor without replicating the data can only be of partial usefulness, if the processor is shaped by and for the data. It's like copying a river by duplicating exactly every last rock and pebble, but leaving out the water. On 7/10/06, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at earthlink.net> wrote: > Back in the 1980's Hans and I had offices next to each other in the > Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon. Over a period of a couple of > years we had numerous arguments about whether machines could realize > consciousness; whether a human mind could be transferred to a machine, > etc. I remember saying that if somehow my "mind" were transferred from > my body to some robot--which I felt was impossible--it might be that > everyone else would agree that it was a remarkable likeness but that I > would be gone. Hans replied that I undervalued myself--that I am > software not hardware. After many arguments along these lines I said, > "Hans, I now understand why you don't understand what I am saying about > consciousness--you don't have it." This was all in good humor and later > when I was teaching a course in AI to MBA students I invited Hans to > continue our debate in class. A good time was had by all, I hope. > > Frank > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell) > Santa Fe, NM 87505 wimberly3 at earthlink.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > Behalf Of Martin C. Martin > Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:16 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > > He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to > calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget > the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very > interesting consequences of this. > > - Martin > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > -- Giles Bowkett http://www.gilesgoatboy.org |
|
|
Shall this conversation be neuronic rather than neurotic?
Or try this http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17164&ch=infotech On 7/13/06, Giles Bowkett <gilesb at gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm inclined to agree. The model I use is nonlinear fluid dynamics. > Say you've got a thought which you began thinking when you were young. > That thought is a fluid in motion. Over the course of your life you > revisit certain ideas and revise certain opinions. The motion > continues for decades. The way you think is like an information > processing system which evolves over the course of your life, and it's > true enough to call that software, not hardware, but the flow of data > through that system is entirely organic, and creating an exact copy of > a given flow in nonlinear fluid dynamics is impossible. The structure > of your mode of thinking -- your "software" -- is shaped tremendously > by the things that you think about; therefore replicating the > processor without replicating the data can only be of partial > usefulness, if the processor is shaped by and for the data. It's like > copying a river by duplicating exactly every last rock and pebble, but > leaving out the water. > > On 7/10/06, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at earthlink.net> wrote: > > Back in the 1980's Hans and I had offices next to each other in the > > Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon. Over a period of a couple of > > years we had numerous arguments about whether machines could realize > > consciousness; whether a human mind could be transferred to a machine, > > etc. I remember saying that if somehow my "mind" were transferred from > > my body to some robot--which I felt was impossible--it might be that > > everyone else would agree that it was a remarkable likeness but that I > > would be gone. Hans replied that I undervalued myself--that I am > > software not hardware. After many arguments along these lines I said, > > "Hans, I now understand why you don't understand what I am saying about > > consciousness--you don't have it." This was all in good humor and later > > when I was teaching a course in AI to MBA students I invited Hans to > > continue our debate in class. A good time was had by all, I hope. > > > > Frank > > > > --- > > Frank C. Wimberly > > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell) > > Santa Fe, NM 87505 wimberly3 at earthlink.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > > Behalf Of Martin C. Martin > > Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:16 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > > > > I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > > > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > > > > He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to > > calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget > > the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very > > interesting consequences of this. > > > > - Martin > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > -- > Giles Bowkett > http://www.gilesgoatboy.org > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > -- George T. Duncan Professor of Statistics Heinz School of Public Policy and Management Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 268-2172 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060713/bcb8105c/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly
as an interesting argument that the old hardware/software argument about
consciousness is often malformed, take a look see at: Damasio, Antonio: _The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness_ At 07:30 AM 7/10/2006, you wrote: >Back in the 1980's Hans and I had offices next to each other in the >Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon. Over a period of a couple of >years we had numerous arguments about whether machines could realize >consciousness; whether a human mind could be transferred to a machine, >etc. I remember saying that if somehow my "mind" were transferred from >my body to some robot--which I felt was impossible--it might be that >everyone else would agree that it was a remarkable likeness but that I >would be gone. Hans replied that I undervalued myself--that I am >software not hardware. After many arguments along these lines I said, >"Hans, I now understand why you don't understand what I am saying about >consciousness--you don't have it." This was all in good humor and later >when I was teaching a course in AI to MBA students I invited Hans to >continue our debate in class. A good time was had by all, I hope. > >Frank > >--- >Frank C. Wimberly >140 Calle Ojo Feliz (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell) >Santa Fe, NM 87505 wimberly3 at earthlink.net > >-----Original Message----- >From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On >Behalf Of Martin C. Martin >Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:16 PM >To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons > >I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 > >He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to >calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget >the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very >interesting consequences of this. > >- Martin > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org =================================== Jim Rutt voice: 505-989-1115 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060713/3f05e21d/attachment.html |
|
|
At the risk of being neurotic, here is link to a review of Damasio's
book: http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/1999/09/21/damasio/index.html Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz??????????????(505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell) Santa Fe, NM 87505???????????wimberly3 at earthlink.net -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jim Rutt Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:58 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons as an interesting argument that the old hardware/software argument about consciousness is often malformed, take a look see at: Damasio, Antonio: _The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness_ ? At 07:30 AM 7/10/2006, you wrote: Back in the 1980's Hans and I had offices next to each other in the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon.? Over a period of a couple of years we had numerous arguments about whether machines could realize consciousness; whether a human mind could be transferred to a machine, etc.? I remember saying that if somehow my "mind" were transferred from my body to some robot--which I felt was impossible--it might be that everyone else would agree that it was a remarkable likeness but that I would be gone.? Hans replied that I undervalued myself--that I am software not hardware.? After many arguments along these lines I said, "Hans, I now understand why you don't understand what I am saying about consciousness--you don't have it."? This was all in good humor and later when I was teaching a course in AI to MBA students I invited Hans to continue our debate in class.? A good time was had by all, I hope. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz????????????? (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell) Santa Fe, NM 87505?????????? wimberly3 at earthlink.net -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [ mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Martin C. Martin Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:16 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306 He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer."? I forget the date, but it's not far.? He also talks about a number of very interesting consequences of this. - Martin ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org =================================== Jim Rutt voice:? 505-989-1115?? |
|
|
Hi all,
About modelling the brain. OK, suppose you have enough CPU's to model a human brain. The question remains: how do you train that brain? I mean, it takes us a few years just to start speaking. Moreover, you need a body and an environment to develop cognition... even if this virtual brain would be controlling a real robot, you really need to have real time interaction to be able to deal with OUR environment... so I see this still VEEEEERY far... Best regards, Carlos Gershenson... Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ ?Tendencies tend to change...? |
|
|
Hi,
I am looking with doubt at some of assumptions made here: 'Neuron follows only very simple integrate-and-fire rules.' The complexity theory tells us that small changes in agents behaviors can shows itself by an global vast change. The dynamics in neuron is much more complex. There are lots of details that maybe important. Integrate and fire is a level of abstraction. Your abstraction model is completely dependent to your aim. If you want to model a real brain i think you should not use the simplest level of abstraction. 'had on average 10^4 connections resulting in a 10^15 computational 'size' for the brain.' I think we does merely not confronted with a set of 10^4 numbers. There are papers suggesting the spacial structure of brain have some computational significance. The connections also have their own dynamics. There are papers emphasizing these dynamics rule in whole system output. I think the problem of modeling the brain is not a matter of computational power. It is a matter of lack of knowledge about the brain. We can not simulate brain simply because we do not know how exactly it is working. we can make assumptions about Brain and simulate our model and compare its output with real model, but we can not model real brain, at least now. Best regards, Habib Talavaty. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060717/83d5f1c9/attachment.html |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |