human vs machine

[Jan Vorbrueggen]

In article <40f42e$pt5 at jurpool0.rz.uni-frankfurt.de> "M. Ferber"
<Ferber at zoology.uni-frankfurt.de> writes:

   In my eyes the connections are the problem. As I pointed out in my previous
   posting there are 1.000.000.000.000 (10 exp 12) neurones in the human
   brain. Each of them receives input from about 1000 other neurones and
   synapses on another 1000 neurones.

Well, the most cited numbers for the human cortex are 10-15*10^9 neurons with,
on average, 10^4 connections each. The cerebellum adds another 10^10 neurons.

   I see no experimental way to decribe these connections and you need this
   information for the model.

There is no way, and you _don't_ need this information for a model. Do you
think your DNA contains this information? Sorry, capacity exceeded. No, the
DNA contains the _programme_ (in an abstract sense) that generates the
connections from experience. And one of the main goals of neuroscience is to
understand how this programme actually works.

   Better? I think faster is the better description. I'm not familiar with the
   literature but are there mathematical laws which were discovered by
   computers?

Yes.

	Jan