arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/tech/ - technology

Name
Email
Subject
Comment

formatting options

File
Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit. https://archive.arisuchan.jp/q/res/2703.html#2703

Kalyx ######


File: 1494690100532.jpg (125.51 KB, 1035x1475, Piaget-1965.jpg)

 No.267

Thread for discussing cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, computational neuroscience, etc.

Ask questions, share resources, help out other lainons

 No.271

Anybody know a good textbook for beginners to cognitive psychology/neuroscience?

 No.1253

Bumping.

 No.1254

Create your own dream machine.

 No.1258

>>271
Not OP bit I can pitch in.
- An Invitation to Cognitive Science Vol. 1-5 - The MIT Press.
If you've got calculus and linear algebra on your repertoire I'd recommend doing this
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/9-29j-introduction-to-computational-neuroscience-spring-2004/

Unlike deep learning, computational neuroscience tries to replicate human and more likely animal brains. It's still open for research, we still haven't even cracked realistic neurons even less made something useful. Some research was done in robotics and neurons but it was easily outperformed by reinforcement learning.

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/

 No.1260

I have taken many free neurology MOOCs in the past, seems like a great way to learn.

One was called "The brain and space", can't remember the titles of the others sorry.

 No.2570

Would love to hear some more thoughts about this thread, I've been reading a lot recently about the philosophical study of consciousness and functional theories of the mind. What do any of you think about Dennett or Churchland here?

 No.2573

>>2570
I'm partial to the eliminatavist ideas that our introspection and various mental states (feelings, emotions, etc) are rough fuzzy representations of how our brains work, and so are a flawed sense that we use to understand and explain our own behaviour rather than the real underpinnings. They take this line of reasoning a bit too far when they claim these states don't exist at all, and that mechanistic explanations of how the brain works would explain all the features of consciousness. For that I like David Chalmer's reasoning. There is nothing in our current understanding of the universe / physics that can link why certain complex processes coincide with conscious perception, and so there is something fundamental left to discover.



[Return] [Go to top] [ Catalog ] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]