I have to say, I'm of a mind with Gualtiero Piccinini, who says, "I am calling for abandoning the classical approach of just searching for computational explanations of human behavior without worrying much, if at all, about neural computation." Instead, "good explanation of a cognitive phenomenon should identify neural components and describe how the neural components produce the phenomenon." Of course, that creates a requirement on the part of cognitive psychologists (and those who use their theories in, say, educational research) to explain how the cognitive phenomena could be instantiated in neural mechanisms at all, and then to describe (more or less plausibly) how those mechanisms could work. Now, the reviewer isn't happy with this. "Piccinini denigrates vast amounts of cognitive science as misguided speculation or at best feeble groping towards a more fruitful cognitive neuroscience." But yes, I'm still with Piccinini.
Today: 0 Total: 1772 [Direct link] [Share]
