Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
If neurons act as a neural network, then a computer software designed for certain tasks and using select characteristics of some neurons will not behave as a "real" neural network.
But now you entered the constraints of using select characteristics and being designed for specific tasks.
My point was that these things are still in development, it seems strange to assume that they cannot one day do more.
And it doesn't just have to be software, apparently some chips are designed as neural networks: http://www.research.ibm.com/cognitiv...ic-chips.shtml

Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
Lightbulb technology will never be "as good as" a sun when it comes to generating light, both because that's an inherent technological constraint and because the design of a lightbulb, being made for specific purposes, is very far from the design of a star.
That is a very strange way to combine these arguments. The physical limitations are relatively obvious, but to say a light bulb is created for specific purposes that differ from those of a star is a bit odd given that the purpose of a light bulb is to replace the light of a star in places or at time where the light of a star is not readily available. Of course the design is different, having a star with the smallest working mass on our planet would be a bit much and also a bit hote, in fact one would rather say having our planet on such a star rather than the other way around.
The light bulb still allows you to see things the same way the star does, so with that purpose in mind, they both provide the same result.

If you are refering to the idea that pouring alcohol over a brain vs pouring it over a computer chip on which a neural network is running yields different results, well, whom are you quoting, Captain Obvious?