On 4/5/07, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I forget the exact number, but I think something like 20% of the human > genome describes the brain. If somebody is interested in building a No, it codes for the brain tissue. That's something very different from describing the brain. See
I didn't mean to imply that all this was for wiring, just that there is a sizable about of information used to construct the brain that comes from the genes. If you want to model the brain then this is the kind of information that you are going to have to put into your model. Why does the optic tract project to the lateral geniculate nucleus, the pretectum and the superior colliculus and not other places in the brain? Why does the lateral genicultate body project to striate and not other parts of cortex? Why does the magnocellular pathway project to layer 4Calpha, while the parvocullular pathway projects to 4A and 4Cbeta? Why does the cerebral cortex project to the putamen and caudate nucleus, but not the subthalamic nucleus? I could list pages and pages of examples of brain wiring that you were born with and that came from your genetics, it's basic neuro science. I don't clam that all wiring in the brain is genetic, or even a sizable proportion of it. What I am claiming is that the brain wiring that is genetic is non-trivial and cannot be ignored if somebody wants to build a working brain simulation. You remember the thread: complexity in the code versus complexity in the
data? The Blue Brain complexity is all in the data. This is very different from the classical AI, which tends to obsessionate about lots of clever algorithms, but typically does sweep the data (state) under the carpet.
Yes, I agree, it's in the "data" rather than the "code". But I don't accept that you can say that their model is simple. Shane ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
