I'm always wary of comparisons and interpretations that work regardless of what happens. One one thing happens, that's like a brain. When the complete opposite

I'm always wary of comparisons and interpretations that work regardless of what happens. One one thing happens, that's like a brain. When the complete opposite thing happens, that's also like the brain. It reminds me of bad Freudian analysis: drinking too much or talking too much indicate an oral fixation. So does not drinking enough or talking enough. Also, not drinking or talking excessively is not an indication that you don't have an oral fixation, since any other vague metaphor about the mouth can also indicate an oral fixation. The behaviors this chip exhibited couldn't be not exhibited by the microchip. The comparisons are suitably vague and can be applied regardless of the outcome of the study. Especially when you consider we don't even know precisely how memory, sleep, or wakefulness work in humans. So you're vaguely comparing a device to something you don't even understand. The actual paper might be more rigorous and level-headed, but the write-up is pure pseudoscience.