GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 17 2015,10:27) | From http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-major....ulation
| Quote | The international team, led by Henry Markram of École Polytechnique Fédérale De Lausanne (EPFL) and funded in part by the Swiss government, completed a first-draft computer reconstruction of a piece of the rat-brain neocortex — about a third of a cubic millimeter of brain tissue containing about 30,000 neurons connected by nearly 40 million synapses.
The electrical behavior of the virtual brain tissue was simulated on supercomputers and found to match the behavior observed in a number of experiments on the brain. Further simulations revealed novel insights into the functioning of the neocortex.
The simulation reproduced a range of previous observations made in experiments on the brain, validating its biological accuracy and providing new insights into the functioning of the neocortex. |
Oh, look, they took care to ground-truth their model by designing algorithms to mimic exactly what happens in nature. You on the other hand put a hippocampus in an insect. In greater detail, you have simplistic circuitry that you have never bothered to fine-tune, and just make all sorts of ridiculous grandiose claims that are not based on the model, about things that you manifestly do not understand (such as your statements about natural selection).
| Quote | The study was a massive effort by 82 scientists and engineers at institutions in Switzerland, Israel, Spain, Hungary, USA, China, Sweden, and the UK. The researchers performed tens of thousands of experiments on neurons and synapses in the neocortex of young rats and catalogued each type of neuron and each type of synapse they found. They identified a series of fundamental rules describing how the neurons are arranged in the microcircuit and how they are connected via synapses.
According to Michael Reimann, a lead author who developed the algorithm used to predict the locations of the nearly 40 million synapses in the microcircuitry, “The algorithm begins by positioning realistic 3D models of neurons in a virtual volume, respecting the measured distribution of different neuron types at different depths. It then detects all locations where the branches of the neurons touch each other — over 600 million. |
You didn't do anything comparable: you just created a word salad, and asserted that it matched reality.
| Quote | “It then systematically prunes [deletes] all the touches that do not fit with five biological rules of connectivity. That leaves 37 million touches.These are the locations where we constructed our model synapses.” To model the behavior of synapses, the researchers integrated data from their experiments and data from the literature. “It is big step forward that we can now estimate the ion currents flowing through 37 million synapses by integrating data for only a few of them,” says Srikanth Ramaswamy, a lead author.
Researchers found a close match between connectivity statistics for the digital reconstruction and experimental measurements in biological tissue, which had not been used in the reconstruction, including measurements by researchers outside the project. Javier DeFelipe, a senior author from Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (UPM), confirms that the digital reconstruction compares well with data from powerful electron microscopes, obtained independently at his laboratory. |
And again, you put a supposed hippocampus in an insect. Worse, it doesn't in any way match an actual hippocampus - it's just some inaccurate oversimplified code that you labeled a hippocampus. You might just as well have said, "Let there be intelligence," and tapped your magic wand twice, for all the added explanation that you've created.
You wonder why you get no respect? Look at what you are doing. |
And somehow you managed to ignore the fact that the result of the incredibly expensive effort still turned out to be a big yawn in cognitive science. More like beginners work we have already seen before so many times it's not even news anymore:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....a-brain
In your case the phrase "ground-truth" can be defined as limiting yourself to what is already known and written about in papers. Nothing original is even allowed. You end up applauding hype that makes it seem like the UK project already discovered all the secrets of the brain and cognitive science can stop now, its researchers are no longer needed and must find new jobs now that there is no need to fund further research.
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
