> there would have to be some kind of structural equivalence in their most basic parts.
Of course there doesn't have to be such an equivalence and I didn't whatn to imply one.
What I did what to imply though was that unless there is some relationship between NNs and the brain there is no meaningful way to translate results from one to the other.
And currently, AFAIK, we do not have a good "dictionary" for that. Something like what RandomBK has mentioned is still missing.
That being said I would also like to see more NN/brain relationship discusssions.
Currently the discussions are really at a super basic level, there were a number of papers out there whether "the brain" does backpropoagation, which was pretty useless science because, again, the brain was modelled in a pretty crudenway.
(The literature is huge and I don't claim being omniscient, so perhaps there is something out already there.)
Of course there doesn't have to be such an equivalence and I didn't whatn to imply one. What I did what to imply though was that unless there is some relationship between NNs and the brain there is no meaningful way to translate results from one to the other. And currently, AFAIK, we do not have a good "dictionary" for that. Something like what RandomBK has mentioned is still missing.
That being said I would also like to see more NN/brain relationship discusssions. Currently the discussions are really at a super basic level, there were a number of papers out there whether "the brain" does backpropoagation, which was pretty useless science because, again, the brain was modelled in a pretty crudenway. (The literature is huge and I don't claim being omniscient, so perhaps there is something out already there.)