You're talking about a philosophical debate whether the brain is computable, the other commenters are pointing out that even conservative estimates point to a brain-like NN requiring over a quadrillion parameters.

▲

red75prime 2 hours ago | parent [-]

...assuming that modelling the physical structure of the brain is the only way to model its functions.

▲

formerly_proven 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Building a "NN with similar capability as the brain" is not modelling its physical structure. The assumption is not made.

▲

red75prime 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Let's define the terms. What does it mean "with similar capacity"? As far as I understand xvilka was taking about the number of artificial neurons required to model a biological neuron times the number of biological neurons in the human brain. It is modelling its physical structure (on a neuronal level).

▲

Chu4eeno 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

You vastly overestimate how much we know about how our brains work.

Look up the neural correlates replication crisis, and e. g. the "dead salmon" study by Bennett et al.

	▲	red75prime 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That is we have unknowns that might increase or decrease estimates of computational demands of a functionally equivalent ANN. Not everything that happens in the brain contributes to information processing.