Yes, I understand the claim. But it rests on the assumption that conflates multiple concepts that to me are substantially non-overlapping are one and the same thing. I would at least expect an explanation of why that is the case and so far I have not found it (at least not in the article).

If neurons do 'one thing' then their position encodes the relationships then snipping out that one weight would make the net forget that one thing. And we already know from many practical experiments that this is not the case. So I really wonder what the underlying mechanism is for that claim to be true.

▲

qt31415926 an hour ago | parent [-]

I wouldn't mix up "neurons do one thing" with "each thing lives only in one neuron" since he doesn't claim that.

Re the first paragraph I'm not sure what you mean by "the assumption that conflates multiple concepts that to me are substantially non-overlapping are one and the same thing"

	▲	jacquesm an hour ago \| parent [-]
		That your ability to describe something does not necessarily equate to your ability to explain something. There are lots of examples of things that we can describe to a very high degree (life itself, for instance!) but that we do not necessarily have the ability to explain.