No! With all due respect, if that's what you thought you completely missed the point. Our point was not: ignore cellular stuff. Our point was: don't try to explain computation cell-by-cell, bc computation emerges from evolutionary and learning optimization processes.
But is the goal of molecular biology in neuroscience to identify cell types? Very depressing if so.
-
-
Fortunately there is a lot of mol bio of learning/memory to build on. And can compare before/after various learning. Point is you still want all this. Even if you interpret computationally by seeking ~ architectures & cost functions that will get optimized, and ask which & how.
-
Right. But wouldn’t one want to be way way more explicit about how one actually thinks about the mechanisms by which these architectures and their structure is brought about. Simply labeling large parts of neuroscience as stamp collectors seems unhelpful at best.
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
. With sequencing you have to have a pretty good idea what you are looking for; e.g. antisense lncRNA and promoter choice of protocadherins.