Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Neuroscience Can't Explain How a Microprocessor Works (economist.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the open-can-of-worms dept.

mspohr writes: The Economist has an interesting story about two neuroscientists/engineers -- Eric Jonas of the University of California, Berkeley, and Konrad Kording of Northwestern University, in Chicago -- who decided to test the methods of neuroscience using a 6502 processor. Their results are published in the PLOS Computational Biology journal. Neuroscientists explore how the brain works by looking at damaged brains and monitoring inputs and outputs to try to infer intermediate processing. They did the same with the 6502 processor which was used in early Atari, Apple and Commodore computers. What they discovered was that these methods were sorely lacking in that they often pointed in the wrong direction and missed important processing steps.

3 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Massive failure from all involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone with even an elementary education in cognitive science will tell you that attempting to model thought processes is always done according to the dominant technology of the time in question. First it was machinery, then it was circuits, then it was computers.

    This does not mean the model is accurate or even useful.

    1. Re:Massive failure from all involved by ElephanTS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly, I have a degree in cognitive science and this is what we are taught. So much of the language of computers has crept into psychology it's unbelievable. And most of it is wrong and misleading. Hundred years ago the personality was being modelled in hydraulic terms (the new cool tech of the age) and even physical models were made. All wrong of course.

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
  2. There are some interesting ramifications. by mmell · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We once had machinery that did computations (example: adding machines). It seemed natural to try to model the brain as a complex machine then.

    We once had electronic circuits designed to perform calculations (example: Enigma). It seemed natural to try to model the brain as a complex electronic device.

    We now routinely use silicon integrated circuits to perform calculations (example: the IBM PC-XT). It seems natural now to try to model the brain as a complex general computing device.

    The take-away point I get from this is that we may need another revolutionary technology or two (fully three-dimensional integrated circuits? IC's based on carbon instead of silicon?) before we can model the sentient mind as similar to an artificially created device. Such advances may also be required before we can create (invent?) a true "artificial intelligence".