4 ms·
Of course a neuroscientist can understand a microprocessor. That’s easy. Let me know when a microprocessor can understand a neuroscientist.
by BadThink6655321 7y ago
Of course a neuroscientist can understand a microprocessor. That’s easy. Let me know when a microprocessor can understand a neuroscientist.
- microcolonel 7y agoIndeed, the title leads you in an unsatisfying direction.
- QuesnayJr 7y agoI think the title is extremely witty, since you expect to see the sentence in a different order.
- scott_s 7y agoIn case anyone thinks the above joke is actually what the paper is doing: it is not. The work is trying to use the same techniques that neuroscientists use on neural systems on a processor. The reason is simple: we already understand processors backwards-and-forwards. The authors' hypothesis is that if the techniques we use on neural systems do not yield useful insights that match the already known-correct understanding of a processor, then we may have a problem with our current neural techniques.
- knolax 7y agoIt seems the paper is about using neuroscience techniques (designed for the brain which is hard to measure nondestructively) to examine microprocessors (which we already know all the physical measurements of) in order to evaluate how effective these techniques would be if we weren't so limited in our measurement of the brain. It's not as vapid as the title suggests.