> And the relevant object is the neurone, not the perception. The argument given in the article is very much that you would perceive an interruption if your ne

> And the relevant object is the neurone, not the perception. The argument given in the article is very much that you would perceive an interruption if your neurons were momentarily doing something else, but you don't, so they don't ("A -> B, not B, therefore not A"). I'm contesting this implication. You merely presented statements equivalent to "neurons don't do that" ("not A"), which misses the point. Or, phrased another way: How do you know that "[neurons] don't just stop being causally activate"? It is not inherently implausible that, at any given time, some neurons in our brain are "on backpropagation maintenance", so to speak. ANNs can be trained just fine with dropout after all (and for ANNs, we intentionally add dropout because it's beneficial!). I have no evidence for this claim (and I don't believe it to be true in the slightest), but "you'd notice a momentary loss of perception" is simply not an argument against it.