Well This Is Embarrassing...

[vellavu]

Could a neuroscientist understand a microprocessor?

Abstract
There is a popular belief in neuroscience that we are primarily data limited, that producing large, multimodal, and complex datasets will, enabled by data analysis algorithms, lead to fundamental insights into the way the brain processes information. Microprocessors are among those artificial information processing systems that are both complex and that we understand at all levels, from the overall logical flow, via logical gates, to the dynamics of transistors. Here we take a simulated classical microprocessor as a model organism, and use our ability to perform arbitrary experiments on it to see if popular data analysis methods from neuroscience can elucidate the way it processes information. We show that the approaches reveal interesting structure in the data but do not meaningfully describe the hierarchy of information processing in the processor. This suggests that current approaches in neuroscience may fall short of producing meaningful models of the brain.

Full paper here: Could a neuroscientist understand a microprocessor? | bioRxiv

Translation to English: The authors used standard methods of neuroscience to analyze CPUs which are much less complicated than animal brains. And they got an epic failure.😀

 

[ILLYRIAN]

WHY?
Why would a neuroscientist want to understand how a CPU works? Who are these authors, maybe out of work neuroscientists? Maybe they ought to try and understand the brain before they go off on a tangent and try to understand a bit in a computer.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

They need to talk to Willow to understand the magic that goes on inside the brain.

 

[Blaze]

Umm interesting...although I'm not sure the brain can be compared to a computer. So naturally the two systems cannot be studied the same way. Even studying a mouse we get huge discrepancies with humans, I don't really imagine the technique they use would really work on a computer. But maybe, who knows, I'm no neuroscientist. What I do know is that we know very little about the brain compared to other areas of science.

 

[vellavu]

WHY?
Why would a neuroscientist want to understand how a CPU works? Who are these authors, maybe out of work neuroscientists? Maybe they ought to try and understand the brain before they go off on a tangent and try to understand a bit in a computer.

Umm interesting...although I'm not sure the brain can be compared to a computer. So naturally the two systems cannot be studied the same way. Even studying a mouse we get huge discrepancies with humans, I don't really imagine the technique they use would really work on a computer. But maybe, who knows, I'm no neuroscientist. What I do know is that we know very little about the brain compared to other areas of science.

It's their anecdotal attempt to review the neuro-research status quo.

They are having serious doubts about themselves. The consensus is that what neuroscientists need the most are just more measuring tools and more data, while the basic methodologies are OK-ish. They had second thoughts on that, and showed a scenario in which there is no restriction on measuring and data because a CPU is basically an open book. And they found that the basic methodologies are totally useless. Of course it doesn't mean that they are also totally useless in actual brain research, but it may inform that we can't be so confident.

 

[November]

HA!

I started studying cognitive neuroscience at uni last year. Quickly realised what a load of crap they were teaching - so much based on theories that are quickly being disproved and much that could be argued. Treatment is another arguing point and the more I learn the more I strongly disagree with most brain science. They have so little understanding yet preach it like its gospel.

Yeah, there are steps forward, but lots of steps sideways messing with things that are no where near ready for us to understand and causing consequence. Honestly wasting time and money when there are many things we can treat NOW if we had people working on it, instead promoting a science in its infancy and as "out there" as planetary exploration.

 

[Anyanka Bunny Slayer]

WHY?
Why would a neuroscientist want to understand how a CPU works?

Perhaps he wants to design an android.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

If you look at the original research done by Nathaniel Kleitman on sleep, one by one, everything is being overturned.

What is not apparent is the connection of neurons to consciousness. From what the data shows, everything with mobile electrons may have a version of consciousness.