Some lines (action couplings) in the thread piggy-back on others. So there is a sense of hierarchy, not one of top down instruction, more something akin to Brooksean layers.
-
-
Do you have better explanations of learning? What about habituated biases? I always feel like enactivists offer under specified computational explanations, then assert that they aren’t positing computations. But I would honestly love to see an alternative story!
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
better than what?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
We could start with the double error-correction model that
@twitemp1 and crew have used to explain classical learning phenomena. I don’t know what a non-computational model of those behaviors would look like4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @theblub and
Just because you don’t know the way to do it, doesn’t mean it can’t be done :) Everyone though the A-Not-B error required an object concept till Thelen and Smith did the requisite hard work
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PsychScientists @theblub and
yes. see my reply above...I'm not claiming that it can't be done, I just want a sense of how it's supposed to be done! I'm happy to abandon a computational approach if anything comes close to offering a real alternative explanation...I'm open to being dead wrong!
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @PsychScientists and
A computational approach requires a semantic function mapping from code to meaning and a structural function mapping from code to neural processes. Until those are precisely specified, computational approaches aren't truly explanatory; they're heuristic models.
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @PsychScientists and
This seems exactly right to me. I think that things are getting close to a mapping story in the context of behavioral learning; and I know from conversation that I'm more optimistic than you on this issue - though I think that we're not *that far* apart on the key issues.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @evantthompson and
And the more I talk to you, and think through your work, the more i find myself pulled toward a story that's far more complicated than most sketches of computational explanations!
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @evantthompson and
Hmm... Playing devil’s advocate: I doubt that we can ever achieve a complete and accurate mapping as
@evantthompson suggest, and, if we do, I am not so sure that it would constitute a “true” explanation, perhaps because I ignore what the latter means. >2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Fair points. But I didn't mean "true explanation;" I meant something that's truly an explanation. I don't think the mapping needs to be complete, but it does need to specify what the neural code actually is; otherwise it's "as-if" talk that hasn't been sufficiently grounded
-
-
Replying to @evantthompson @PsychScientists and
Well, I disagree. I'm happy assuming different explanatory levels. To use a silly simile, we do not need to appeal to subatomic particles to account for the dynamics of a pendulum.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @twitemp1 @PsychScientists and
I'm not arguing against distinct explanatory levels. I'm saying computation is a heuristic without a specification of how its implemented.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - 13 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.