This is a different argument that the one I was responding to. Your new argument relies on the idea that neuron-level response is "relatively simple". Our best knowledge of the brain suggests that it is, in fact, extremely complex.
If you want to act in real time, you need to minimize the number of steps between sensor and actuator, which you can partially compensate by increasing the number of parallel paths, which implies a larger number of elements. It turns out that individual neurons are cheap.
-
-
Your claim is now that the routing from brain to muscle is so inefficient that it dominates the number of neurons in the brain. Putting aside biological evidience, why should we believe this? (e.g., the routing needs to be so bad that it grows faster than the number of neurons.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.