I agree that most computer scientists working on anything "neural" would benefit from a more biology-based understanding of the brain. But I think the article w

I agree that most computer scientists working on anything "neural" would benefit from a more biology-based understanding of the brain. But I think the article was using "synchronicity" in a different way, in that the bad thing about synchronous hardware is that it forces all computations to fit into a set time period, even though computations take less time. So removing that barrier is an efficiency increase. And I think the "fire together wire together" thing is more about synaptic plasticity and doesn't really relate to the concept of synchronicity as described in the article (to my understanding). Fire together wire together means When a neuron fires as a result of signal from another one, certain molecules are created to strengthen the neurons relationship. There is nothing timing / synchronous about this, using timing in the sense of requiring a third-party "scheduler" to regulate firing. Individual neurons are not regulated by this constraint. But yes, there are so many other amazing features of neurons that we don't fully understand and that aren't used in computer design because of a lack of basic knowledge about the biology and chemistry.