The most remarkable thing about the brain is that it wasn't designed. As a result, how the brain works is largely an irrelevant question.
-
Both are giant fields, yet have little relative overlap. The intersection is currently ripe with new, interesting ideas :)
Neuro is great for inspiration, but the algorithms we build from this inspiration tend to have little in common with the original phenomena
-
-
In this regard it isn't clear if neuroscience inspiration is more effective than, say, inspiration from physics
-
In that regard you can't avoid physics it does not matter if you take inspiration from the field that can't be said of neuroscience.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How can it be great for inspiration and yet be irrelevant for AI? (as per your original tweet)
-
It seems like you might be talking about the neurophysiological mechanisms of brain function, ie at the cellular level?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Do you have examples for this?
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.