Many PDP networks are not biologically plausible, they may have
algorhythms much stronger than real neurons can have.
Many other networks may be (Hebbian, attractor networks, etc)
See e.g. ET Rolls & Treves book -Oxofrd University Press.
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 18:57:57 -0700, "Lars" <lars121 at pacbell.net> wrote:
>I think the latest research in artificial neural networks combines a
>mechanical model that interfaces with cultured, biological tissue.
>Investigators such as Guenther, Cohen and Grossberg at BU
>(http://cns-web.bu.edu) are using innovative investigative teqhniques
>allowing a better understanding of human cognition and neurological function
>which can then be incorporated into ANN models.
>>>"Liar42" <liar42 at aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010811072632.00188.00000136 at mb-fj.aol.com...>> >I have understood that artificial neural networks, used in computer
>> >simulations, are not a valid model for biological neural networks.
>>>> No, they are not.
>>>> >developing behavioral processes with artificial neural networks is
>> to develop it with a biologically plausible model.
>> Is it true?<
>>>> I do not regard it so.
>>>>>> Some people just can't tell their own I from several other brain systems,
>> totally sense censored, try to reduce the brain to some neurons
>> how many more glia there are than neurons and irregardless what energies
>> are neither perceiving about the whole brain&body well nor are well
>> about systems functions,
>>>> and next believe that if they make some artificial processors, that that
>> going to simulate a mammal ape homo chimp brain.
>>>> The sapiens part of that might leave to wonder.