The Relation Between Psychology and Neuroscience
Whether we study single cells, measure populations of neurons, characterize anatomical structure, or quantify BOLD, whether we collect reaction times or construct computational models, it is a presupposition of our field that we strive to bridge the neurosciences and the psychological/cognitive sciences. Our tools provide us with ever-greater spatial resolution and ideal temporal resolution. But do we have the right conceptual resolution? This conversation focuses on how we are doing with this challenge, whether we have examples of successful linking hypotheses between psychological and neurobiological accounts, whether we are missing important ideas or tools, and where we might go or should go, if all goes well. The conversation, in other words, examines the very core of cognitive neuroscience. Discussants are:
Lila Davachi, Columbia University
Jennifer Groh, Duke University
Catherine Hartley, New York University
Sharon L. Thompson-Schill, University of Pennsylvania
Discussion moderator: David Poepple, New York University
Пікірлер: 12
Super now let's actually learn something.
Very nice sir
Unfortunately overall quite a low-grade presentation that should have and could have been much better. Poor slides, way too many filler words from the presenters. Not very well thought out. Not sure why Sharon even turned up she had nothing to contribute. Overall quite disappointing because it could’ve been so much better
What precisely is meant here, the relation between behaviour and neuroscience or the relation between mind and neuroscience? And the essential question; does behaviour necessarily require the presence of mind? I do not believe so as there is a distinct lack of evidence to that effect. Sorry for being so pedantic but at such a critical juncture in human history, I thought the distinction worthy of mention. Also, sorry for being British and insisting on propper use of language and terminology but one is either scientifically literate or one is not and what is scientific literacy without proper use of (in this instance) English. I do believe I communicated this well enough in the intended sentiment without resorting to profanities. No one is more surprised by that than I. and please in the name of all that is holy! Tel me that "categorilly" means something different than "categorically" Also, if you want to confirm the intellectual condition of humanity count the number of comments with variations on the following theme: "Well done" and "Thank you for the upload" and other trending comments equally inane like "Awesome". People like this have been programming "AI" on behalf of the entire human species. What do you think is going to happen?
@annak29
Жыл бұрын
It should be titled "Elite Feminism Pretends To Show and Tell Science". Your candor is refreshing. The Americans have excelled to destroy an eloquent language, that much is evident. 13:43 "Water...nothing is more simple than water, three molecules, H-2-oh." Just incredulous here - who is paying for her "education" and this symposium? Mediocrity would be 100x more useful than this.
@stanleyklein524
Жыл бұрын
Spot on. We credential folk in neuropscyh and psych well beyond their capabilities in this (and probably other) country.
wtf this dude on?
Absolute rubbish. There is no demonstrable relation between neurological analyses and psychological constructs (if one differentiates psychology -- subjective experience -- from biology -- behavioral manifestations). The level of scholarship on display from neuroscientific analyses of psychological phenomena is indicative of the poor state of scholarship in both disciplines (BTW: I, along with Gazzaniga and Kihsltrom) introduced neuro to social/personality -- not Cacioppo or any other claimant -- in 1993 and again in 1998). Cacioppo's claim to such "fame" is that he used the word in a paper in @ 1991. So, my critique is grounded in reasoned argument (read: a multitude of peer-reviewed papers), not sour grapes). BTW: I am willing to wager that the overwhelming majority of neuroscientists taking psychology (or economics, or literature, or theology, etc.) as their target have virtually no idea what makes X a science.