tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13710336.post6443641233348081276..comments2022-09-18T11:14:36.876-04:00Comments on Neurochannels: Model systems in systems neuroscience?Eric Thomsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06847717704454032165noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13710336.post-5998529733510203122009-11-22T18:12:56.116-05:002009-11-22T18:12:56.116-05:00Azriel: I think what you say is consistent with hi...Azriel: I think what you say is consistent with his quotes, is orthogonal.<br /><br />Everyone would agree that there are network-level phenomena that arise via the interaction of simpler mechanisms (e.g., multineuronal oscillations). Laurent is saying that it is better to study such higher-level phenomena in the simplest system possible. That is different from saying that we should just study Eric Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06847717704454032165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13710336.post-80330404233440635422009-11-22T16:56:09.239-05:002009-11-22T16:56:09.239-05:00I also think it is important to consider what type...I also think it is important to consider what types of questions one is interested in answering. If its the most basic principles of molecular neuroscience, then yea, very reductionist preparations are in order. However, as a systems neuroscientist, I am interested in emergent properties of the brain. That is, in characterizing scale phenomena at a specific level of complexity / abstraction layerAikidudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08379126482646821843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13710336.post-82590383956556886272008-11-02T14:16:00.000-05:002008-11-02T14:16:00.000-05:00Eric,If you are interested, preprints of two of my...Eric,<BR/><BR/>If you are interested, preprints of two of my recent publications on the retinoid system as the neuronal substrate of consciousness and the self can be seen in pdf form here:<BR/><BR/> http://eprints.assc.caltech.edu/355/<BR/><BR/> http://eprints.assc.caltech.edu/468/arnold Trehubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10019949314092142107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13710336.post-17029303282969164802008-11-01T13:53:00.000-04:002008-11-01T13:53:00.000-04:00Arnold: I was more focused on models of the brain,...Arnold: I was more focused on models of the brain, which presently are quite underconstrained (e.g., we don't even have a complete serial EM of a single cortical column yet). However, clearly models that make interesting and unexpected psychological predictions that go beyond the phenomenon for which they were originally developed (i.e., they don't predict them because they were made to predict Eric Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06847717704454032165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13710336.post-35809427837631118392008-11-01T10:51:00.000-04:002008-11-01T10:51:00.000-04:00I think the notion that theoretical models of larg...I think the notion that theoretical models of large, complex systems must necessarily be less constrained than simple model systems has not been properly conceived. In my opinion, the level of constraint of *any* model must be determined (post hoc) by the predictive power of the model with respect to the phenomena predicted. For example, the retinoid model, though highly complex, has good arnold Trehubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10019949314092142107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13710336.post-57963406446016445202008-10-31T14:34:00.000-04:002008-10-31T14:34:00.000-04:00I don't see this as a zero-sum scientific game. Wh...I don't see this as a zero-sum scientific game. Why shouldn't the cognitive neuroscientist investigate and theorize about the human brain/cortex in relation to cognition and phenomenal experience, while the study of simpler organisms like aplysia, leech, and fruit fly satisfies the curiosity of the neuroscientist so inclined?arnold Trehubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10019949314092142107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13710336.post-37905559194664437422008-10-29T20:32:00.000-04:002008-10-29T20:32:00.000-04:00anon said:The neuroscience community has been give...<B>anon</B> said:<BR/><I>The neuroscience community has been given the task, "Prove that the mind and the brain are the same thing."</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't put it that way. That tends to be how people outside of neuroscience look at it, but primarily we just want to understand how brains work to control behavior. Of course we also want to draw correlations between mental states and neuronal Eric Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06847717704454032165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13710336.post-18879476934249646332008-10-29T17:19:00.000-04:002008-10-29T17:19:00.000-04:00The neuroscience community has been given the task...The neuroscience community has been given the task, "Prove that the mind and the brain are the same thing."<BR/>I think this gets them in a rush, presumes many answers we don't actually know, and may hinder the most basic research you refer to.<BR/>I'm thinking that it would be better all around if we looked to see what the brain is and what it does and leave the larger philosophical questions Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com