4 ms·
That question ist weird. "Sure, why not?" would be my reply to that. I thought one should avoid yes/no questions for a paper? I'm not a neuroscientist (I canno
by dschuetz 9y ago
That question ist weird. "Sure, why not?" would be my reply to that. I thought one should avoid yes/no questions for a paper?
I'm not a neuroscientist (I cannot afford medical education), nor am I a microprocessor engineer (yet). But I understand how systems work, so I might have a chance to understand how neural networks work (as models and their real counterparts) and I might have already an understanding on how microprocessors are designed by principle. So, yes, a neuroscientist who decides to visit some lectures on digital logic circuits and microprocessor design might have a chance to understand it! I'm really confused about this quenstion.
- B-Con 9y agoNo offense, but it seems like you didn't click through. From the abstract: > here we take a 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. 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. We show that the approaches reveal interesting structure in the data but do not meaningfully describe the hierarchy of information processing in the microprocessor. The idea is to apply the modern neuroscience approach to a microprocessor to see what level of understand of the microprocessor is extracted. tl;dr: The high-level "meaning" of the processor's design is not extracted. The purpose seems to be to examine the inherent limitations of modern neuroscience by applying it to a design that we do understand quite well apart from neuroscience, something we ourselves designed.