3 ms·

I don’t think it’s helpful to eliminate teleological accounts categorically. This writing is clearly for public consumption and benefits from simplying descri

I don’t think it’s helpful to eliminate teleological accounts categorically. This writing is clearly for public consumption and benefits from simplying descriptions of what’s happening, so that the layman reader might have the impression of having understood something. Computational neuroscience could be written off by your statement that the brain is not a computer, but perhaps soften your stance and accept that that allows for applying tools from computer science to ask questions, just as physicists do.

mjburgess 8y ago
Well my stance is hard for the sake of ruling out computer science as an explanatory framework for neuroscience. Computational metaphors arent explanatory, they're illusory sorts of explanations (like narrative) which "satisfy" without providing a causal model (ie., a scientific explanation). I'm not convinced they have been helpful, and mostly end up giving deeply mistaken impressions about the nature of digital computers -- rather than helpful impressions about the nature of brains.
- marmaduke 8y ago
  Computational metaphors about the brain usually acknowledge explicitly the nonlinearity of information transformation, and use the word computation under the assumption the transformation is doing something useful. This hardly seems controversial so I find the statements you’re making a bit allergic.
dschuetz 8y ago
I only agree that it's good to have articles using layman's terms. But a problem arises when false/simplified claims are made from which the uneducated reader will make false or exaggerated assumptions! For example, an article says "Quantum Physics is so weird that it's almost magical!" The uneducated reader only can make the assumption "Quantum Physics is magical, because it's weird!" due to lack of background knowledge and understanding of terms. Same goes for any other popular science article/journal. The key is to explain using layman's terms without making false claims while trying to simplify the subject.
- marmaduke 8y ago
  I agree but it is rare to find a layman’s explanation that is faithful in way all the experts can agree on.

mjburgess 8y ago

Well my stance is hard for the sake of ruling out computer science as an explanatory framework for neuroscience. Computational metaphors arent explanatory, they're illusory sorts of explanations (like narrative) which "satisfy" without providing a causal model (ie., a scientific explanation). I'm not convinced they have been helpful, and mostly end up giving deeply mistaken impressions about the nature of digital computers -- rather than helpful impressions about the nature of brains.

marmaduke 8y ago
Computational metaphors about the brain usually acknowledge explicitly the nonlinearity of information transformation, and use the word computation under the assumption the transformation is doing something useful. This hardly seems controversial so I find the statements you’re making a bit allergic.

dschuetz 8y ago

I only agree that it's good to have articles using layman's terms. But a problem arises when false/simplified claims are made from which the uneducated reader will make false or exaggerated assumptions! For example, an article says "Quantum Physics is so weird that it's almost magical!" The uneducated reader only can make the assumption "Quantum Physics is magical, because it's weird!" due to lack of background knowledge and understanding of terms. Same goes for any other popular science article/journal. The key is to explain using layman's terms without making false claims while trying to simplify the subject.

marmaduke 8y ago
I agree but it is rare to find a layman’s explanation that is faithful in way all the experts can agree on.