r2pi wrote:A multimeter is not a useless tool for a computer technician, but when using it, one should be aware of its limitations.
Traveller, could I humbly suggest you re-read my post, with the above as a sample.
I have great respect for neuroscience - I merely caution against over-reaching with it.
I don't think my analogy is disrespectful - in fact, I would say most neuroscientists would agree. (But most neuroscientists also would not think Strassman's DMT theory to be particularly compelling.) The brain is a vastly more complex system than any computer. And yet the body of knowledge one could build up by analysing a computer with a multimeter would probably be similar in volume to our current knowledge about the brain. It's not a big reach to conclude that in proportion to the complexity of each, we in fact know less about the brain than a multimeter-wielder would know about a computer (including its software).
At the moment neuroscientists speak of great areas of the brain "lighting up" on scans, or of entire neurotransmitter systems being affected - this is akin to noticing power draw to a particular integrated circuit, or a particular frequency of current. You could really go a long way towards understanding computer hardware with that, but you'd also be a very very long way from answering a question like "how does iTunes work?".
That's not disrespectful. Lots of knowledge could be built up with a multimeter and lots of computer faults can be diagnosed with a multimeter and fixed with a soldering iron. But any theory you came up with with regards to complex software behaviour, whilst potentially entertaining and interesting, would be most unlikely to be correct. You'd be so far from having the theoretical basis for making such a theory that you'd be better off not making one, and concentrating instead on building the knowledge of the fundamentals first.