This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Neuroinformatics is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Hi. I noticed this article's "Research achievements" section is a near-perfect copy/paste of Mind uploading's "Current research" section. I'm new to both articles, so I don't know which came first, but the full text should live in one place, with a summary and link to the other. Otherwise, maintenance is difficult. As I just learned, making edits in one place, before this discovery. I'll leave it to the domain experts here or at mind uploading to decide. Cheers. --Ds13 (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I wrote both texts, at about the same time, because I wanted input from people with both interests.
Neuroinformatics is wider than full brain emulation, so the section in this article should also include other aspects, for example improved understanding of brain diseases, development of tools for disabled, advanced in brain-computer interfaces, etc. Mange01 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
aspects of Vilayanur S. Ramachandran's insight
Collapse material with no obvious relevance to improving this article -- Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I do study the human brain, and methods we on MIT clone one by one each section, but as a digital part, mimicing also all it's activities. We have to use Programmers, CPU designers, Neuroscientists, Neuroendocrinologists, and MATHEMATICIANS!!! We have to analyze (Quantum Cognition some name it, I do not care about old names because might be misleading) each human brain section, how it processes inputs/outputs, and mimic also it's wiring. The brain is a biochemical machine, the digital brain is an electronic system. We should NOT start focusing on the "performer of thought" but we have to start MATHEMATICALLY analyze the input/output processes with all the feedback connections and internal submechanisms of a single organel. We have to undertand MATHEMATICALLY the algorithm of pure thought of each organel, and then translate that process on a circuit able to produce the same (probabilistically inside an acceptable correct p-value statistical graph) pattern + feedback mechanism for each digital organel. We cannot clone directly FLESH TO SILICON, we have to reveal at first PURE THOUGHT=MATHEMATICAL ALGORITHMS, and then translate that in a CPU able to produce the same results and allow also feedback and the same wiring among organels. The electronic circuits DO NOT MIMIC the human brain functionally, ONLY THE WIRING AND ARRANGEMENT of the organels mimic the human brain, NOT their inner mechanisms. We have to respect digital CPUs perform at their best as digital CPUs. The point is to produce TRUE THOUGHT! True thought is not something digital or biological. True thought is many mathematical algorithms interconnected and allowing visceral feedback and wiring. Not respecting digital mechanisms, distorting or focusing only at the material of the thinking application, removes the core component of thought, the algorithms of the organels with all their wiring and feedback mechanisms.
when I speak about the wiring, I mean the external wiring of each digital organel. I never claimed we should distort the basic CPU inner design.