> As far as I understand, we simply do not understand neuron activity at
> a low level enough to make such a thing feasible.
Henry Markram has always been adamant that there are enough details already discovered and put into the neurophysiology journals. Of course, now you have to fish that data out and into some usable format.
Henry Markram has always been adamant that there are enough details already discovered and put into the neurophysiology journals. Of course, now you have to fish that data out and into some usable format.
I would tend to disagree. For example as recently as ten years ago everybody knew that most of the computation was implicit in the neural connectivity of the synapses. We now know that there is significant computation within individual neurons - in the dendrites of all things (previously thought to be pretty much passive carriers of output from other cells - just wires basically).
I think it's a big jump to say that what I said is the same as saying (as you put your interpretation of my comment) "there are no new things to talk about". Besides, if you were to just assume that there's no details available, then you will never aggregate them. But the reality is that there is a great deal of detail in the literature, which can be used to build (even incomplete) models. You could even look at the model to help inform the toiling grad students which neurons to poke at more.
http://channelpedia.epfl.ch/ionchannels
http://www.neuroml.org/