Intelligent Design Neuroscience

At Mind Matters News: How complex is a single neuron in your brain?

Spread the love

More complex than most computers:

To find out, David Beniaguev, Idan Segev and Michael London, all at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, trained an artificial deep neural network to mimic the computations of a simulated biological neuron. They showed that a deep neural network requires between five and eight layers of interconnected “neurons” to represent the complexity of one single biological neuron.

Even the authors did not anticipate such complexity. “I thought it would be simpler and smaller,” said Beniaguev. He expected that three or four layers would be enough to capture the computations performed within the cell.

– Allison Whitten, “How Computationally Complex Is a Single Neuron?” at Quanta Magazine (September 22, 2021) the Paper Is Closed Access.

News, “How complex is a single neuron in your brain?” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: An artificial intelligence network did not do nearly as well. Researchers showed that a deep neural network needs 5-8 layers of [artificial] interconnected “neurons” to mimic the complexity of one single biological neuron.

You may also wish to read:

Researchers can’t explain: Memories drift from neuron to neuron. Memories are supposed to stay put in the neurons that lay them down. A recent study, published at Nature, shows that they move a lot…

and

Human neurons are different from animal ones, researchers say.

6 Replies to “At Mind Matters News: How complex is a single neuron in your brain?

  1. 1
    Silver Asiatic says:

    They showed that a deep neural network requires between five and eight layers of interconnected “neurons” to represent the complexity of one single biological neuron.

    There are 100 billion neurons in the brain – times those 5 to 8 layers of connection.
    All that evolved from some bacteria that supposedly formed by chance.

    “I thought it would be simpler and smaller,” said Beniaguev.

    That should have been a humiliating thing to say – but probably not. They can be entirely wrong about everything and never take a pause.
    We all know why he harbored that false idea. Darwin thought the same thing about all of life. It was a necessary condition for his theory. Materialism itself is built on that error. Everything is supposed to come from a small and simple component from which stunning complexity accidentally emerged (and it’s better if there is no complexity).

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    And as surprisingly complex as a single neuron was for them, at the end of the article it is pointed out that “real neurons might be even more complex” than what they found in their study since their simulation was limited in that it is quote-unquote “currently impossible for neuroscientists to record the full input-output function of a real neuron”.

    How Computationally Complex Is a Single Neuron? – Sept. – 2021
    They showed that a deep neural network requires between five and eight layers of interconnected “neurons” to represent the complexity of one single biological neuron.
    Even the authors did not anticipate such complexity. “I thought it would be simpler and smaller,” said Beniaguev. He expected that three or four layers would be enough to capture the computations performed within the cell.,,,
    They started by creating a massive simulation of the input-output function of a type of neuron with distinct trees of dendritic branches at its top and bottom, known as a pyramidal neuron, from a rat’s cortex. Then they fed the simulation into a deep neural network that had up to 256 artificial neurons in each layer. They continued increasing the number of layers until they achieved 99% accuracy at the millisecond level between the input and output of the simulated neuron. The deep neural network successfully predicted the behavior of the neuron’s input-output function with at least five — but no more than eight — artificial layers. In most of the networks, that equated to about 1,000 artificial neurons for just one biological neuron…..
    ,,, but the study’s authors caution that it’s not a straightforward correspondence yet. “The relationship between how many layers you have in a neural network and the complexity of the network is not obvious,” said London. So we can’t really say how much more complexity is gained by moving from, say, four layers to five. Nor can we say that the need for 1,000 artificial neurons means that a biological neuron is exactly 1,000 times as complex.,,,
    If each biological neuron is like a five-layer artificial neural network, then perhaps an image classification network with 50 layers is equivalent to 10 real neurons in a biological network.,,,,
    Unfortunately, it’s currently impossible for neuroscientists to record the full input-output function of a real neuron, so there’s likely more going on that the model of a biological neuron isn’t capturing. In other words, real neurons might be even more complex.
    “We’re not sure that between five and eight is really the final number,” said London.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-computationally-complex-is-a-single-neuron-20210902/

    And my bottom dollar bet is that their hunch that a single neuron is even more computationally complex than what they found in this present study is correct.

    Any Darwinists want to take me up on that bet?

  3. 3
    EDTA says:

    Even the dendritic arms of neurons have processing capability. We’ve only begun to scratch the surface of the complexity we will uncover: https://www.quantamagazine.org/neural-dendrites-reveal-their-computational-power-20200114/

  4. 4
    martin_r says:

    from a mainstream website (Scienceabc.com)

    May 2021:

    Evolution of computers
    Since the birth of the first computers, there has been a direct comparison between these “calculating machines” and the human brain. One of the common phrases circulating for decades, promoting the idea of a “brain versus computer” argument, is “brains are analog, computers are digital.”

    This makes it seem as if computers are superior, but the truth is that the human brain is much more advanced and efficient and has more raw computing power than the most impressive supercomputers ever built.

    Guys, have you ever seen how a supercomputer looks like ? It is a huge room full of interconnected computers/servers or whatever you want to call it.

    e.g. here is a picture of IBM’s Sequoia ( King of Supercomputers) :

    https://assets.rbl.ms/25569859/origin.jpg

    Now forget the computation speed, but imagine, how much electricity consumes this supercomputer … for a layman, it is even hard to imagine .. you need a power station to power such a supercomputer….

    And now, take a human brain – you eat a baguette and it works … and it works much faster … requires zero energy (compared to a supercomputer), and it takes zero space (compared to a supercomputer)

    BAD DESIGN ?

    THIS IS AN ENGINEERING SCI-FI !!!!

    only Darwinian biologists (natural science graduates) can call it a bad design ….
    … it is so absurd …

    PS: who on earth can buy this nonsense, that human brain with all its features evolved ????? and, according to Darwinian theory, brains and higher intelligence EVOLVED NOT ONCE, BUT MULTIPLE TIMES INDEPENDENTLY !!!!!!!!!! (convergent evolution non-sense)

  5. 5
    Silver Asiatic says:

    martin

    PS: who on earth can buy this nonsense, that human brain with all its features evolved ????? and, according to Darwinian theory, brains and higher intelligence EVOLVED NOT ONCE, BUT MULTIPLE TIMES INDEPENDENTLY !!!!!!!!!!

    I’m always tempted to say insulting thing when I consider this sort of issue.
    But the people who believe such absurdities are not stupid or unintelligent. Actually, the problem may be that they’ve simply read to much of a one-sided approach and gradually believe, litte-by-little, one crazy thing after the next and never realize how far they’ve gone.

  6. 6
    tjguy says:

    Oh ye of little faith! Just close your eyes and believe!

    Make up a story and tell it confidently. It HAD to have happened so who cares if our story is not right?

    True evidence in evolutionary “science” is highly over-rated.

Leave a Reply