We are no different than computers

[emjay]

On topic, though - yeah, NAND is brilliant.  The answer that ctm might offer, regarding brain structure..is that our nuerons are most definitely -not- nand gates..but nand simply describes an implementation of an implicational relationship within the boundaries of whatever material it was formed from.  So, say, a string NAND is not capable of everything that a digital NAND is capable of (that's why string comps like our targeting systems from ww2 went out as fast as they came in).  Similarly, a nueral net may be performing NAND, it may be arranged so that a NAND can be applied to data, and even though it's not, strictly speaking, built -as- a NAND...it is capable of performing the NAND function.  The NN has the better explanation for implementation, imo...while CTM has a better explanation of the underlying principles.  That's all just my opinion.  In short, it's much more likely, between the two, that our brains are structured as NN, however, the manner in which the NN works leans on classical computing, CTM.

Sorry you kinda lost me again. Are we looking for a NAND gate or not? If we are, then at the level of individual neurons I'd say not a chance but in terms of groups of neurons it's a definite possibility. Take a simple NOT for instance. That could be achieved, possibly, with inhibition which is a prevalent feature in the brain's neural networks. Inhibition serves to stop neurons getting too excited and to turn them off. In fact I think the knee-jerk reflex uses an approach very much like that and with very few neurons so it should be very illustrative. It uses inhibitory interneurons to switch between the various muscles that it needs to trigger in opposition to each other. You'll have to bear with me while I look into the details of that.

---

Those things are awesome!  I was looking at those but they're too heavy.   Mine, after 200grams or so...wobbles...and I get no flight time.  Pretty much full throttle all the time.  I believe mine works slightly under specs (I looked them up but I can't remember how much it can lift, only that it didn't live up to the specs).  It's not the board itself, but the associated peripherals..like the IR camera - but even more than that the battery.  Also, alot of the power of that thing would be wasted for the task I have in mind, at least in the manner I want to try and make it do the work.

I just need a board that can detect IR variance, and then focus it's efforts around that area - all while flying a parrot within defined boundaries (property lines associated /w an onboard nav, a radio fence..who knows, haven't got that far yet).  Ideally it would be simple, cheap, and built entirely to-purpose...like a hammer.  It's farm equipment, after all.  I'm sure that an actual engineer could whip something up in no time, professionally....but that doesn't sound like a hell of alot of fun.

(I want to get my daughter one, though, just for fun)

-or did you mean helpful in learning architecture?  The answer to that is no, absolutely not - though I've been told they're great for flaunting what you -already- know in attaching peripherals..lol.....

I meant the latter but your first answer is cool too