"There is 0 chance that this approach will have any kind of success in understanding memory and thought" You don't need to understand it, you just need to be a

"There is 0 chance that this approach will have any kind of success in understanding memory and thought" You don't need to understand it, you just need to be able to derive a correlation. Look, we've already been able to do this in a crude fashion with both brainwaves and PEM and fMRI. What you're saying is that you'll never understand biology without studying DNA, and molecular biology, but you can "understand" a complex system at many different levels. Or locating say, the language center of the brain at a gross anatomy level is useless. All of these coarse grained high level scientific discoveries have advanced the state of the art. Neuralink isn't try to decode the bits in your neurons. They're trying to construct a broad association between spike patterns and thought processes. We've already had success doing this, they're just upping the resolution. And to say that this can't grant your more than 0 insight into how memory works is as silly as saying that brain injuries to things like the hippocampus didn't grant any kind of help in understanding memory formation. Put another way, 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_yaQTR3KHI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_yaQTR3KHI 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWoPI-VoFV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWoPI-VoFV0 3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs2GDSYYCoA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs2GDSYYCoA