This is a good thread explaining the flipside. But the main cause for concern is not in equating real neurons with ANN neurons, but in equating the whole structures which these neurons, respectively, are constituent parts: the biological brain, and an ANN.
It is the *then* statement, not the *if*.
It is the *then* statement, not the *if*.
Reposted from
Blake Richards
10/ With all due respect to my colleagues who are "splitters": you have to learn how to let us "lumpers" engage in abstractions that allow us to make theoretical headway. Insisting that we're not allowed to think of ANN units as neurons because of "biological fact X", is not helpful.
Comments
In fact, this whole argument--premised on the notion of using more neurons to get to the brain-like function is--to me--wrong.
And its not even about spiking neurons(!) One of the key drivers of what the brain can do under such intense metabolic constraints are neurons that *don't* fire.