At least it would be closer to the truth. Dehydratation is a condition in which simply driking water might lead to a really bad state, such as hyponatraemia.
Well, scientists use mathematical logic, quite a long trip from the sandbox.
Some people say that scientists need science philosophy, as birds need birdwatchers. At least birdwatchers build some houses for the birds, and make sure their predator population don't get too high. I'm still waiting for philosophers to get rid of those republican/conservative/evolutionist/put-your-own-retard here.
Remember this [slashdot.org] story from ages ago? Remember how well that returned on its promises of creating a real brain? That was spike-timing dependent plasticity as well, and unsurprisingly it never did anything resembling thought.
The only place where the FACETS European project promised to create a real brain was on/. The project goal
was to create a theoretical and experimental foundation for the realisation of novel computing paradigms which exploit the concepts experimentally observed in biological nervous systems
, according to its website [1].
As a matter of fact, this project has been a success, and led to the BrainScaleS European project, which
aims at understanding function and interaction of multiple spatial and temporal scales in brain information processing.
[2]. Again, there is no unrealistic/journalistic promises here.
I think the REAL problem is that even the smallest brains have several billion neurons
Worms have hundreds, flies thousands. I'm still waiting (and probably be long dead before that happen) for a computer simulation/hardware design managing to do everything a fly can.
That's forgetting the time domain. Even if the spike is binary (but, for instance, some cells in the retina are purely analog), the timing between spikes really matters. It appears that this timing is controlled by a lot of factors, including subthreshold activity. The timing leads to varying spike frequency, correlations, etc.
One should not forget that every neuron is a cell, involving large amounts of (mostly unknown) molecular mechanisms impacting the spike discharges, hence the neural information.
That's because you talk about AI, whereas the topic here is computational neuroscience (biological neurons).
The Hodgkin-Huxley model, dates back to the 50's, and includes ion channels. Those guys receive the Nobel for that. If you look at the Figure 1 in the paper [1], they draw the small circuit associated with their differential equations.
As to the novelties in their approach, one should have a look at their paper, which should be on PNAS, but I cannot find it (first there is no issue of the 14, and nothing in the 15th, second a search for Rachmuth does not lead to any result on the website).
[1] August 28, 1952 The Journal of Physiology, 117, 500-544
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in a country where obvious drugs are legal (e.g. alcohol, nicotine), that's just a sign of the moronity of its inhabitants.
I thought what killed it was the buzzing sound making it impossible to actually phone, without modifying the actual hardware.
I wish a software would tell if boobs have been inflated. How long until a BoobFox?
At least it would be closer to the truth. Dehydratation is a condition in which simply driking water might lead to a really bad state, such as hyponatraemia.
That's what I thought. Then I came to the US. https://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6054/289.full
Well, scientists use mathematical logic, quite a long trip from the sandbox.
Some people say that scientists need science philosophy, as birds need birdwatchers. At least birdwatchers build some houses for the birds, and make sure their predator population don't get too high. I'm still waiting for philosophers to get rid of those republican/conservative/evolutionist/put-your-own-retard here.
The good news is that we now know how to cure any form of cancer in mice.
And eat your own shit. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7368/full/478156a.html
you simply do not understand those concepts.
Well, if you do it worse than science or religion, it's philosophy.
Actually de Broglie would prefer to be called duke, since he was not from England. Also, I doubt any physicist do not know about de Broglie.
Remember this [slashdot.org] story from ages ago? Remember how well that returned on its promises of creating a real brain? That was spike-timing dependent plasticity as well, and unsurprisingly it never did anything resembling thought.
The only place where the FACETS European project promised to create a real brain was on /. The project goal
was to create a theoretical and experimental foundation for the realisation of novel computing paradigms which exploit the concepts experimentally observed in biological nervous systems
, according to its website [1].
As a matter of fact, this project has been a success, and led to the BrainScaleS European project, which
aims at understanding function and interaction of multiple spatial and temporal scales in brain information processing.
[2]. Again, there is no unrealistic/journalistic promises here.
[1] http://facets.kip.uni-heidelberg.de/public/goals/index.html [2] http://brainscales.kip.uni-heidelberg.de/
I think the REAL problem is that even the smallest brains have several billion neurons
Worms have hundreds, flies thousands. I'm still waiting (and probably be long dead before that happen) for a computer simulation/hardware design managing to do everything a fly can.
That's forgetting the time domain. Even if the spike is binary (but, for instance, some cells in the retina are purely analog), the timing between spikes really matters. It appears that this timing is controlled by a lot of factors, including subthreshold activity. The timing leads to varying spike frequency, correlations, etc. One should not forget that every neuron is a cell, involving large amounts of (mostly unknown) molecular mechanisms impacting the spike discharges, hence the neural information.
Also, most of those 10 000 connections are to nearby neurons, presumably because long-distance communication involves the same latency
As a matter of fact, in the brain long-distance connections are myelinated and are thus much master that short-distance ones.
That's because you talk about AI, whereas the topic here is computational neuroscience (biological neurons). The Hodgkin-Huxley model, dates back to the 50's, and includes ion channels. Those guys receive the Nobel for that. If you look at the Figure 1 in the paper [1], they draw the small circuit associated with their differential equations. As to the novelties in their approach, one should have a look at their paper, which should be on PNAS, but I cannot find it (first there is no issue of the 14, and nothing in the 15th, second a search for Rachmuth does not lead to any result on the website). [1] August 28, 1952 The Journal of Physiology, 117, 500-544