[robwwilliams]

If you study retinal synaptic circuitry you will not sigh so heavily and you will in fact see striking homologies with hardware neural networks, including feedback between layers and discretized (action potential) outputs via the optic nerve.

I recommend reading Synaptic Organization of the Brain or getting into if you are brave, the primary literature on retinal processing of visual input.

[TaylorAlexander]

Actually it’s funny my best friend is a neuroscientist and studies the retina and in particular the way different types of retinal cells respond to stimulus. I have watched her give presentations on her work and I do see that there are some similarities.

But it is nonetheless the case that “neural networks” are not called that because they are based on the way neurons work.

[ImHereToVote]

They literally are:

https://www.ibm.com/topics/neural-networks#:~:text=Their%20n...

[smokel]

The book "The Synaptic Organization of the Brain" appears to be from 2003. Is it still relevant, or is there perhaps a more recent book worth checking out?

[robwwilliams]

It is great even though older. The chapter by Sterling on retina is amazing. Yes there is an updated version by Gordon Shepherd and colleagues: Handbook of Brain Microcircuits, but I actually prefer the 2003 edition.

[__loam]

I will continue to sigh. The visual cortex is relatively simple and linear. You're not saying something that's as impressive as you think it is.

[l33t7332273]

I think the point of the example is that that is an important part of our brains that is relatively simple and linear and we’ve been able to mimic it.

[robwwilliams]

Anything but simple and anything but linear.