What an absurd dismissal.
> they're not interesting
You have a failure of appreciation, yet those facts are potent and surprising.
>constructive to a larger understanding
Yes they are not, who cares?
Teaching neuroscience is of course a non-goal of my comment, what an irrelevant thing to say..
>analogizing the cerebellum to a GPU is naive and misleading to the point of being insulting.
Exactly, but if you had allocated a few neurons while reading my comment you would have seen I said "a poor simplist-ification" akin to only transmitting the idea that it is the place in the brain with the most compute power/parallelism.
>working neuroscientist don't think about consciousness, we look at neurobiology,
Such a useless thing to say. It is a truism that scientists mostly focus on what can be studied by the means of metrology/empiricism and indeed for now, qualias are low-studiable.
Saying this has no more value than saying water is wet.
Your shallow dismissal is just a pretext to your layman explanation of what is the brain. Explanation with btw zero level of detail.
I have read over 1000 papers in neuropharmacology and there are in facts a lot of things we understand about brains.
But, the C.elegans ~150-300 neurons, which is much simpler than the fruit flies, is as of now unexplained in terms of neural code, despite having an almost complete connectome of its neuroreceptors.
But no the C.elgans is not one of the most complex thing in the universe. This is a fallacy that make seems progress seems impossible. The truth is, C.elgans has a relatively reasonable complexity, however we lack real-time datasets and we lack accurate instruments to observe and retroengineer the while system.