Brains: Recent Comments

Comment on Challenging Neuroscience to Explain Cognition

Brendan — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:53:44 GMT

Interesting,

I met Gallistel a couple of years ago, and I could not figure out why he was making this comparison to DNA. Now it makes sense. Their (apparent) view reminds me of the memory-heredity theorists of the 19th century, and more ironically, 19th century associationists.

(Yes, Alex, hint hint)

Comment on Challenging Neuroscience to Explain Cognition

Eric Thomson — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:08:53 GMT

That quote from Newell is just fantastic.

Comment on Challenging Neuroscience to Explain Cognition

Arnold Trehub — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:17:12 GMT

For a neuronal (mechanistic) theory of cognition that refutes Gallistel and King, see *The Cognitive Brain* (MIT Press 1991), in particular chapters 7, 8, and 12. You can read these chapters here:

http://people.umass.edu/trehub

Comment on Challenging Neuroscience to Explain Cognition

Bill — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:05:32 GMT

I agree with your criticism. It's surprising how behind the current CNS research some theorists appear to be.

It's long been clear that there are several types of memory, and several mechanisms for memory. As for how the ants do it, I have no idea, but in mammals it has been studied for decades, for example see the link below:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kezqJb69OlAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR4&dq=behavioural+neurology+memory&ots=Ew17jF1OnT&sig=dx51OfRNLxi9icYEmhjCVScwr0A#v=onepage&q=hippocampus and the binding&f=false

Comment on A bibliography on modularity

Edouard Machery — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:51:55 GMT

Thanks Gualtiero. This is a good idea.

Comment on A bibliography on modularity

gualtiero — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:44:30 GMT

Great job; it will be very useful.

Minor comment: You cite Herb Simon's 1962 article The Sciences of the Artificial. It might be even useful to point out that Simon expanded the article into a classic book by the same title, whose third revised edition was published in 1996.

Comment on Congratulations

gualtiero — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:40:40 GMT

Thanks, guys!

Comment on The Identity Theory in 2-D

Eric Thomson — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:58:51 GMT

I don't understand what he means by 'metaphysical physicalism.' Is having 3kg of mass 'essentially physical'? More generally, what does it mean to have a property that is 'essentially physical'?

Comment on Congratulations

Brad Rives — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:50:41 GMT

Congratulations Gualtiero!

Comment on Congratulations

Eddy Nahmias — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:24:32 GMT

Excellent news Gualtiero!