<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
I have already written at least one paper (with Trevor Harley)
complaining about much the same cluster of issues as have been
raised in this discussion.<br>
<br>
I will mention just two points, extracted from those papers:<br>
<br>
1) Re. Ptolemy's Epicycles, and the bankruptcy of that approach to
psychology/neuroscience. <br>
<br>
It is possible to see this entire issue as stemming from the
"complex-system-ness" of the system we are interested in. To the
extent that cognition is a complex system (i.e. there is a
disconnect between overall behavior and underlying mechanism), we
would [insert here a long argument] expect it to be extraordinarily
difficult to come up with high level theories of brain function that
have a tight connection to the underlying neural machinery. That is
especially relevant to those who think they can understand the brain
by just simulating it, or collecting vast amounts of signal data:
you're wasting your time, because all that effort will boot you
nothing.<br>
<br>
There IS a way around that issue, but it involves a realignment of
how we do both cog psych and neuroscience (and AI for that matter).
We need more systematic exploration of very large numbers of
different types of cognitive mechanism models. Treat the discovery
of theories not as the work of bright individuals (one theory per
individual per lifetime) but as a process that is quasi-automated,
and which yields a thousand theories a day.<br>
<br>
2) Re Brain Imaging.<br>
<br>
In the Loosemore and Harley paper I pointed out the massive impact
that a slightly off-beat theory can have. If the functional units
of the brain are actually "virtual" entities that are allowed to
move around on a physical network of column-like units, some of the
neuroscience data can be explained in a very elegant way (and BTW
the same data is inconsistent with all other theories or
frameworks). But....but....but: that same off-beat theory, if it
were correct, would render into nonsense almost all of the defauot
assumptions being made by those collecting the Big Neuroscience Data
right now. It would do that because believe it or not all that BND
is pretty much wedded to the idea that the functional units are not
virtual; that the physical units actually do 'mean' something most
of the time.<br>
<br>
My conclusion is with James, and with Juyang Weng, who started the
discussion. The Big Data/Brain-Simulation-Or-Bust approach is a
gigantic boondoggle.<br>
<br>
Richard Loosemore<br>
Mathematical and Physical Science<br>
Wells College<br>
Aurora NY 13026<br>
USA<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 1/25/14, 12:05 PM, james bower wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:7C477036-B425-485D-998E-B7BB1CF34376@uthscsa.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Hi Jose,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ah, neuroimaging - don’t get me started. Not all, but a
great deal of neuroimaging has become a modern form of
phrenology IMHO, distorting not only neuroscience, but it turns
out, increasingly business too. To wit:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
[.....]<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>