/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10506512
>is the reader expected to assume the direct opposite
It was meant to provide ease of understanding to guide the reader through specific logics. Turns out it was neither easy nor rigorous.
>fundamental' differences
Neurons essentially convert external and certain internal stimuli into reactions through neural networks. They do share fundamental characteristics, input, activation and output. To discuss how evolution first emerged to make the design of neurons such a universal feature in intelligent systems, there must be a universal logic that explains the flexibility of animals' reactions when they are faced with different stimuli. The article was meant to do exactly that, hypothesizing the evolution from the most primitive perspective.

In computers, a neuron can access a node without physical travel path, and there's no need to design neurons that specifically regulate functions such as hormones and heart rate. Biology needs a lot of special designs that can keep the physical body alive, but these are not necessary in computer softwares. Aside from the ones that are highly optimized toward intelligent reactions, I think we can ignore many of the brain's physiological designs when it comes to AI.

I did make unnecessary assertions, as no one can be exactly sure of the path of how evolution came to be. Don't take it too seriously, though; if the article was meant to provide rigorous and convincing evidence I would have done a lot more research.