So, how much actual neuroscience do you have, as opposed to the sort that assumed that neural nets are actually a thing?
I think a lot of poor analogies get made on the assumption that brains are a lot more digital and a lot more like the computers that we think we understand (though a lot of that tends to be a hand approximation, AFAICT, too, but I know brains better at this point) than the messy sloppy weird slow but parallel and did I say weird analog thingies that they are.
(Part of what I want to talk about is about how neurons work, and part is about things like how learning works, which is way more about the limbic system than data processing in a computational sense, really... Unless your computational sense is really broad.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I think a lot of poor analogies get made on the assumption that brains are a lot more digital and a lot more like the computers that we think we understand (though a lot of that tends to be a hand approximation, AFAICT, too, but I know brains better at this point) than the messy sloppy weird slow but parallel and did I say weird analog thingies that they are.
(Part of what I want to talk about is about how neurons work, and part is about things like how learning works, which is way more about the limbic system than data processing in a computational sense, really... Unless your computational sense is really broad.)