A microprocessor is admittedly a poor metaphor for a brain. However, I think the article still makes a strong point, which is that neuroscientists use many experimental and signal-processing techniques whose utility hasn't even been demonstrated in principle, much less in practice. To me that's the largest take-away from this article.

To use a set of techniques to investigate the operation of a device whose function we fully understand, and still fail to draw meaningful conclusions, raises serious questions about the usefulness of those same techniques in a much more complicated and less-well-understood domain.