cause the neurons themselves store info, can DNA regenerate? not well.
Can we have a debate on if we should change the title
i think the title should be dynamic with it being like
Thread Name (Current Debate Topic)
But i am unsure of what it can be right now
It would have been nice if you had opened the discussion with some scientific articles or reliable sources.
Except… they can?
Yes, but the information doesn’t come with the neurons. It is stored in the acquired traits of the neurons. Take this insanely wired example: say you have been tattooed with the complete works of William Shakespeare, and are stranded on an island with many other people. Say they want to read hamlet, you are the only resource. If you are destroyed, a clone of you wouldnt have the tattoos, let alone the memories. If no one else memorized the works it doesn’t matter if they can clone you, because even if they do they’ll keep remembering Romeo and Juliet as a perfect love and forget it ended in a double suicide.
Yes, but still, neurons can regenerate
I’m staying them regenerating is cloning. They’re back, but without their tattoos.
Okay, I’m going to throw my two and a half cents in the hat.
If this is going anywhere, we need a definition of regenerate: Do we (as a group) mean physical replacement of damaged tissue, or complete cloning of a neural network from a prior state?
IF we are using the first definition, then yes, neurogenesis will replace the physically damaged or missing neurons.
IF we are the second, then… well, kind of. The thing about how neural networks work is damage to the network is rerouted through alternate (normally physically close) sections of the network. Neurogenesis (aka creating new neurons) is actually detrimental to reconstruction of extant nets, because you are introducing new paths into the network. Given that you are attempting to reestablish an extant response based on the interactions between the surrounding networks…
This, however, is nothing new. Your brain forgets things all the time, in fact it is vital that you remaining functional. Have an article that covers some of the basics of this.
Personally, I find the current discussion a matter of semantics - individual neurons can and do regenerate via replacement, while neural networks rebuild themselves in a limited plastic manner to approximate the original data stored. Your brain, though, is designed to forget - not to remember. There is too much data in even a split second of you with your eyes closed for you to process, it has to be broke down. Approximated. And, as more usage of said network occurs, you get more optimization in a particular direction (this is not guaranteed to be useful or a “good” change, this can lead to inflexibility and is another reason why pruning is useful - removing unneeded pathways and forcibly resetting networks).
I mean… You don’t even remember any given memory the same from run to run. Your brain naturally trims unneeded info from memories, creates new connections and generally simplifies (aka approximates) the data stored.
Thus, the idea that a neural network - something that is most useful because of it’s plasticity, being something static is… less useful? Neural networks never regenerate into a carbon copy because a carbon copy isn’t what it’s useful for.