Does this mean you believe that psychological phenomena cannot be explained in terms of neural activity? I think most neuroscientists, myself included, would find that a shocking claim.
-
-
In fact I made this point before. "Nevertheless, fMRI has proven useful in understanding neural representations that are consequential to behavior. Perhaps this success suggests that the appropriate level for relating brain to behavior is close to what fMRI measures.
-
This does not mean lower-level efforts do not have utility when the details are of interest. However, fMRI’s success might mean that when one is interested in the nature of computations carried out by the brain, the level of analysis where fMRI applies may be preferred.
-
To draw an analogy, one could construct a theory of macroeconomics based on quantum physics, but it would be incredibly cumbersome and no more predictive nor explanatory than a theory that contained abstract concepts such as money and supply.
-
Reductionism, while seductive, is not always the best path forward."https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21397 …
-
I agree with some of what youve said but not that fmri is a good way to link behavior to biology. IMO, It's one of many approaches and not particularly good for understanding mechanisms.
-
We don't have to agree. Unlike what a lot of non-scientists believe, science actually progresses because we all have different views on stuff.
-
Definitely
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thats totally reasonable. But it seems people have somehow turned "it's not useful" into "it's not possible." At least that's what I feel like I'm see occasionally & that makes no sense to me.
-
I think you need to unpack what they mean by "possible".
-
haha, trying!
-
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you you (Grace) just the dialogue needs to probe that. Because "possible" might easily mean "impractical" or even "unfeasible". Somethings are physically possible but practically impossible.
-
I mean for real, would you task a person (or even a team) with doing economics in a quantum mechanical framework?
-
True, but I meant even more in principle limits applying to any idealized computational agent.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I made that point in a workshop once and one physicist hated me for it. It’s true, though. Theories need to be “graspable” (they are representations after all) and if they aren’t, they’re useless.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.