Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor?

There is a popular belief in neuroscience that we are primarily data limited, and that producing large, multimodal, and complex datasets will, with the help of advanced data analysis algorithms, lead to fundamental insights into the way the brain processes information. These datasets do not yet exis...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Eric Jonas, Konrad Paul Kording
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2017-01-01
Series:PLoS Computational Biology
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005268
id doaj-8b243007b2ae403ba7371d41bdd3057e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8b243007b2ae403ba7371d41bdd3057e2021-04-21T15:39:12ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS Computational Biology1553-734X1553-73582017-01-01131e100526810.1371/journal.pcbi.1005268Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor?Eric JonasKonrad Paul KordingThere is a popular belief in neuroscience that we are primarily data limited, and that producing large, multimodal, and complex datasets will, with the help of advanced data analysis algorithms, lead to fundamental insights into the way the brain processes information. These datasets do not yet exist, and if they did we would have no way of evaluating whether or not the algorithmically-generated insights were sufficient or even correct. To address this, here we take a classical microprocessor as a model organism, and use our ability to perform arbitrary experiments on it to see if popular data analysis methods from neuroscience can elucidate the way it processes information. Microprocessors are among those artificial information processing systems that are both complex and that we understand at all levels, from the overall logical flow, via logical gates, to the dynamics of transistors. We show that the approaches reveal interesting structure in the data but do not meaningfully describe the hierarchy of information processing in the microprocessor. This suggests current analytic approaches in neuroscience may fall short of producing meaningful understanding of neural systems, regardless of the amount of data. Additionally, we argue for scientists using complex non-linear dynamical systems with known ground truth, such as the microprocessor as a validation platform for time-series and structure discovery methods.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005268
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Eric Jonas
Konrad Paul Kording
spellingShingle Eric Jonas
Konrad Paul Kording
Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor?
PLoS Computational Biology
author_facet Eric Jonas
Konrad Paul Kording
author_sort Eric Jonas
title Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor?
title_short Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor?
title_full Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor?
title_fullStr Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor?
title_full_unstemmed Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor?
title_sort could a neuroscientist understand a microprocessor?
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS Computational Biology
issn 1553-734X
1553-7358
publishDate 2017-01-01
description There is a popular belief in neuroscience that we are primarily data limited, and that producing large, multimodal, and complex datasets will, with the help of advanced data analysis algorithms, lead to fundamental insights into the way the brain processes information. These datasets do not yet exist, and if they did we would have no way of evaluating whether or not the algorithmically-generated insights were sufficient or even correct. To address this, here we take a classical microprocessor as a model organism, and use our ability to perform arbitrary experiments on it to see if popular data analysis methods from neuroscience can elucidate the way it processes information. Microprocessors are among those artificial information processing systems that are both complex and that we understand at all levels, from the overall logical flow, via logical gates, to the dynamics of transistors. We show that the approaches reveal interesting structure in the data but do not meaningfully describe the hierarchy of information processing in the microprocessor. This suggests current analytic approaches in neuroscience may fall short of producing meaningful understanding of neural systems, regardless of the amount of data. Additionally, we argue for scientists using complex non-linear dynamical systems with known ground truth, such as the microprocessor as a validation platform for time-series and structure discovery methods.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005268
work_keys_str_mv AT ericjonas couldaneuroscientistunderstandamicroprocessor
AT konradpaulkording couldaneuroscientistunderstandamicroprocessor
_version_ 1714667164485550080