University of Cambridge > Talks.cam > Computational Neuroscience > Computational Neuroscience Journal Club

  Browse A-Z

Log in

Cambridge users (raven)details Other usersdetails No account?details

Information on

Subscribing to talksdetails Finding a talkdetails Adding a talkdetails Disseminating talksdetails Help and Documentationdetails

Computational Neuroscience Journal Club

Add to your list(s) Download to your calendar using vCal

If you have a question about this talk, please contact Luke Johnston.

Abstract:

One of the tasks of philosophy is to offer methodological critiques of other disciplines. In this journal club, we will discuss two papers from within neuroscience that dissect our tools and techniques. By examining the philosophical assumptions that underlie these methods, the papers aim to shed a light on what they see as prominent problems within modern neuroscience. In particular, both papers are concerned with the issue of what is means to understand a cognitive system, and whether we have the capacity to generate that understanding.

The first paper, “Neuroscience Needs Behaviour: Correcting a Reductionist Bias” (Krakauer et al. 2017) examines the role of behavioural data in neuroscientific analysis. The authors advance a thesis that neuroscientific analysis focusing on constituent elements of the nervous system, such as individual neurons and circuits, is insufficient to generate a rich understanding of the brain and the computations it performs. Instead, an understanding-oriented analysis much begin with the repertoire of natural behaviours the nervous system is capable of producing.

The second paper, “Could a neuroscientist understand a microprocessor?” (Jones and Kording 2017) asks whether standard neuroscientific techniques are capable of generating the sort of understanding that the discipline seeks. To test these standard techniques, the authors apply them to a computational system (a microprocessor) and ask whether they are sufficient to uncover the computations being performed. Finding them wanting, they then ask what these techniques must be supplemented with to give us a toolkit for understanding computational processes.

References:

[1] “Neuroscience Needs Behaviour: Correcting a Reductionist Bias” (Krakauer et al. 2017)

[2] “Could a neuroscientist understand a microprocessor?” (Jones and Kording 2017)

Zoom information:

https://eng-cam.zoom.us/j/84204498431?pwd=Um1oU284b1YxWThObGw4ZU9XZitWdz09 Meeting ID: 842 0449 8431 Passcode: 684140

This talk is part of the Computational Neuroscience series.

Tell a friend about this talk:

This talk is included in these lists:

Note that ex-directory lists are not shown.

Other lists

Andrew Marr and Jackie Ashley in Conversation with Sarah Smith (Scotland Editor, BBC) Cambridge Coding Academy free tech talks CAS FPGA Talks

Other talks

Physics aware machine learning in engineering Distributed brain network activities in memory resilient to extinction Relaxation to Equilibrium and Emergence of Long-range Order in a Two-Dimensional Quantum Vortex Gas MMV OfB Finish
 

© 2006-2024 Talks.cam, University of Cambridge. Contact Us | Help and Documentation | Privacy and Publicity