youtube video

Right now i bend toward thinking it is likely possible to simulate it on just cognitive level, with much less computational power. I think, because, process (axon, dendrit) growth here is simulated in 3d movement, plus ion chanels are simulated individually also, to know how action potential propagates. There is quite some specificity of neuronal binding, plus some neurons are just there to filter out signals accidentally propagating from regions from which they shouldn't propagate to another region. These are inhibitory neurons with small processes, synapsed to axons of bigger neurons, and to dendrites of other neurons, into which the previous one might synapse also. So that if the big exitatory neuron fires off a signal, the connected small inhibitory would fire also, negating eachothers effect at the target site, basicly disallowing information to process from one neuron to another.
These filter neurons could be thrown out all together from the simalation. Axonal synapse site exploration could be simulated by statistical chance of being connected with target neurons based on positions, and axonal growth patterns, pluse some average growth rate considered. maybe Intra neuronal transport could be simplified even more significantly.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 5 2011, 7:05 am by matefkr.

I have no idea what you just said.

2019! Very impressive. Hopefully the deadline is met, and humanity can gross yet another great frontier.

I think far more is at work in neurons than we realize. I find this project to be overwhelmingly ambitious.

How do you know? What makes you think so?

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000278

This is put in the ballpark of an extremely recent discovery. I think more study is warranted.

Lol. This was submitted to the journal in 2008, and finally published in 2010. You and I have very different concepts of 'extremely recent', I think. And just look at a lot of his references, they're from the 1900s...

I smell a pessimist!

I have no idea what I just read.

With the concept of sectional rendering (sure why not, I'll call it that)...
So wait... the concept is...

It's minecraft.

2010 is extremely recent, scientifically speaking. Perhaps you should read the paper.

---


It is about a specific "tipping point" in neural interactions. The real implications of this, however, is that neurons may be communicating through some type of quantum weirdness, as well as through action potentials.

Interesting stuff.

2010 is extremely recent in a scientific sense.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 11 2011, 2:29 pm by NudeRaider. Reason: the rest is irrelevant, minor flame and backseat moderation

As I already said, the article was completed in 2008, which you both still ignore and say '2010' (January, btw). Also ignoring what I said about the dated references.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 11 2011, 2:32 pm by NudeRaider. Reason: the rest is disrespectul and non-contributive

I hadn't read all of the article (but i want to). All of the references are from earlier then 2008 (that is the papers, and experiments referenced). However It might also contain conclusions and reductions from those ealrier informations, which might have been drawn later then 2008. So if you personally know that this paper had the same shape in 2008, (logically speaking) then of course it was completed in 2008. On the other hand, it doesn't matter much if it has older references, because, if you want to use a fact or finding in the paper in your reasoning, then you have to give reference to a work which uncovered it, and if this work is not repeated, then it is possible you will reference old documents, the content of which might be still true. Though you may say that it doesn't contain much new findings or whatever. I think you should rather discuss the topic.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 11 2011, 2:33 pm by NudeRaider. Reason: edited the post you responded to

So interesting. I wonder what'll be done with this new whatever he's doing LOL

I use 2010 because that's when it was published (i.e., finished peer review). No discovery before peer review is worth more than two shakes. Additionally, the information about the discovery was not made publicly until 2010. This means most scientists and researchers did not know of its existence until 2010.

Even discoveries in 2008 are recent, scientifically. They're not internet memes. They are something that requires a considerable amount time and effort to prepare, test, and share. I would find it extremely difficult to find any further published study on the topic.

I find it intriguing you find something wrong with studies from the last century. Just because they are old does not make them invalid.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 11 2011, 2:35 pm by NudeRaider. Reason: edited the post you responded to

I never said old studies are invalid, or that I find something wrong with them. I am saying studies that were done in 2008 are not what I consider 'extremely recent'. Maybe just recent-ish...