You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on Open Thread, May 11 - May 17, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gondolinian 11 May 2015 12:16AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (247)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 13 May 2015 10:02:52AM -1 points [-]

The Lanauder limits on switching energies is one bound, but most of the energy (in brains or modern computers) goes to wire transmission energy, and one can derive bounds on signal propagation energy in the vicinity of ~1pJ / bit / mm for reliable signaling.

The energy count for signal transmission doesn't include changing the amount of ion channels a neuron has. You might model short term plasticity but you don't get long term plasticity.

You also don't model how hormones and other neurotransmitter float around in the brain. An ANN deals only with the electric signal transmission misses essential parts of how the brain works. That doesn't make it bad for the purposes of being an ANN but it's lacking as a model of the brain.

Comment author: jacob_cannell 13 May 2015 04:30:55PM 0 points [-]

Sure, all of that is true, but of the brain's 10 watt budget, more than half is spent on electric signaling and computation, so all the other stuff you mention at most increases the intrinsic simulation complexity by a factor of 2.

Comment author: ChristianKl 13 May 2015 05:50:37PM 0 points [-]

Are you aware of the complexity of folding of a single protein? It might not take much energy but it's very complex.

If you have 1000 different types of proteins swimming around in a neurons that interact with each other I don't think you get that by adding a factor of two.