Nicole RustSep 9, 2023

6 thought provoking questions posed to @awaisaftab (psychiatrist) and myself (brain researcher) and we hit on so much:

The challenge of escaping reductionism. Theories of consciousness. Are mental disorders brain disorders? Why should anyone care about philosophy? Is epistemic iteration is failing? And what bits of brain research are awaiting their Copernican moment?

With nods to @summerfieldlab, @knutson_brain, @tyrell_turing, @Neurograce, @eikofried and so many more.

Read it all here (and let's discuss)!

https://awaisaftab.substack.com/p/advancing-neuroscientific-understanding

Advancing Neuroscientific Understanding of Brain-Behavior Relationship

A Conversation with Nicole C. Rust, PhD, a Professor and brain researcher at the University of Pennsylvania.

Psychiatry at the Margins
Show threadBlake RichardsSep 11, 2023

@NicoleCRust @awaisaftab @summerfieldlab @knutson_brain @Neurograce @eikofried

Fascinating discussion! Thanks for sharing this.

But, I can't help myself, I have to engage in my usual refrain here (sorry, lol), since it comes up in the second paragraph:

Brains are *literally* computers and information processing devices, it's not a metaphor!!! 🙂

Show threadCJ Stevens - MetaphysiologySep 13, 2023
@tyrell_turing @NicoleCRust @awaisaftab @summerfieldlab @knutson_brain @Neurograce @eikofried
Is that an "are" of strict identity? Or do you believe brains also have functions outside of computing/information processing..?
Show threadBlake RichardsSep 13, 2023

@WorldImagining @NicoleCRust @awaisaftab @summerfieldlab @knutson_brain @Neurograce @eikofried

Strict identity - if we're using the broad definitions of computing and info processing from computer science, anything else implies magic/spirit.

Show threadYogi JaegerSep 13, 2023

@tyrell_turing

Cognition is not computation. It is an elaboration of organismic agency, which is not of an algorithmic nature. There is nothing magical about that.

You're fundamentally misinterpreting Turing's theory of computation, which was always about the human act of computing, not about the brain or the world. Turing would turn in his grave if he would hear you.

Some historical context: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/church-turing.

This may also help: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07515.
Longer paper coming soon!

The Church-Turing Thesis (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Show threadBlake RichardsSep 13, 2023

@yoginho

Respectfully, I disagree. I don't think you're accurately summarising computability theory, nor the implications for neuroscience.

As Yoshua Bengio once said to someone at a workshop I was at (paraphrasing):

"Computation just means physics. Saying the brain is a computer is just a way of saying that it is a physical device. I don't even know what a non-computational theory of the brain means, unless you're talking about magic."

Show threadBlake RichardsSep 13, 2023

@yoginho

Remember, as the very article from the Philosophy Encyclopedia describes, the original goal of both Turing and Church was simply to formalise the idea of an "effective method", i.e. a mechanical way of solving a problem.

If the Church-Turing thesis holds, then any problem that a mechanical (i.e. purely physical) system can solve represents a computable function, and the object implementing it is engaged in a computation.

Show threadYogi JaegerSep 14, 2023

@tyrell_turing

Did you know that this argument only came up with Deutsch and Lloyd in the 1980/90s? Before that, nobody (including Church & Turing) ever thought that it would be reasonable to apply the term "computation" to physics.

So, no: it's you, not me who's misreading Turing. Effective computation means literally "something a human being can do by rote" (i.e. calculating, scheduling, optimizing). In Church & Turing's 30s papers, a computer is a (usually underpaid, female) human.

Show threadBlake RichardsSep 14, 2023

@yoginho

I don't really want to engage in an extended debate here, but I will just note this:

Turing and others very much so connected humans being able to do some calculation by rote to the ability to create a mechanical device to do that function.

So, there was always a direct connection to physics/mechanics, because the implication was always that if an effective method existed, then a physical/mechanical system could in principle implement the function for us.

Show threadYogi JaegerSep 14, 2023

@tyrell_turing

Nobody doubts that you can mechanicize rote human behavior. In fact, that's exactly the point of a universal Turing machine. It is designed to implement any process that can be machanicized that way.

How you get from that to "the brain or the world are a computer/mechanism" is mysterious to me. And it was to Turing and Church who always resisted such an unwarranted extrapolation.

No extended discussion needed, really. There is simply nothing that supports your worldview...

Show threadBen de BivortSep 14, 2023

@yoginho @tyrell_turing This thread is a fun read, but I wonder if you are both working from the same definition of computing to ask if cognition or physical processes are computation?

If you each were to independently write down definitions of computation, how operationally similar would they be?

If you have very different definitions, it's a disagreement of assumptions, not one that can be resolved through evidence.

cc @NicoleCRust re: my comment in your thread on jargon.

Show threadBen KanterSep 14, 2023
@debivort @yoginho @tyrell_turing @NicoleCRust This thread, while educational to me, is the opposite of fun. I'm sure @tyrell_turing is used to it for having provocative opinions, but this style of academic attack turns many people off from engaging in discussions in the first place. If you find someone's take "absurd" why not approach it with curiosity and good faith instead? @NicoleCRust is a great example to follow - often disagrees, never attacks.
Show threadYogi JaegerSep 14, 2023
@beneuroscience I've spent a whole life engaging reductionists & computationalists with curiosity. So now I can call them out in good faith for the utter bullshit they are heaping on humanity. Computationalism is an existential threat. I'm really tired playing Mr. Nice Guy with people who literally live in their model of the world, while screwing up the real world in the process. It may be unpleasant, but certainly not bad faith. Deal with it.
Show threadYogi JaegerSep 14, 2023
@beneuroscience One more thing: it'd be nice if at least some AI nerds & computationalist neuroscience people would engage with the kinds of criticisms they get from me (and others with similar arguments) in good faith and with an open mind. They are the mainstream in power, after all, so should be comfortable with a bit of critique. All I get is a wall of silence (see @tyrell_turing's cop-out above, for example) & some dismissive slogans. And yet, you won't see me crying in a corner.
Show threadBen KanterSep 14, 2023
@yoginho @tyrell_turing If you sincerely wanted people with differing views to engage, you'd consider the real possibility that you may be wrong. Or at the very least that there is value in other ways of thinking. Otherwise what's the point of arguing about it?
Show threadYogi JaegerSep 14, 2023

@beneuroscience Hmm. Yes. I'm here because I was longing to get advice on epistemic humility and communication strategy from you. Thank you very much.

Do you have anything to say about the content of the argument? If not, why do you think you need to weigh in?

@tyrell_turing can defend himself, if he wants to, and he surely does know how provocations work...

Show threadNicole RustSep 14, 2023

@yoginho @beneuroscience @tyrell_turing

I understand your frustration @yoginho. It's clear that you regard the stakes on this as exceedingly high and you're over being patient when it leads to individuals ultimately dodging your criticisms.

But even when we are frustrated, let's punch up, not down.

(For what it's worth, I've never heard you comment on these issues before and I'm very much listening).

Show threadYogi JaegerSep 15, 2023

@NicoleCRust

Thanks for your intervention! I was getting frustrated with this particular individual, but there is not reason to punch down.

The situation inspired me to write a short blog post called "The Thing about Epistemic Humility."

http://www.johannesjaeger.eu/blog/the-thing-about-epistemic-humility

I think it's important to know when such humility is appropriate (even essential) and when it is definitely not.

The Thing about Epistemic Humility

Twice now, in the short span of one week, I've been reminded on social media that I should be more humble when arguing — that I lack epistemic humility .

Untethered in the Platonic Realm
Luigi PetruccoSep 17, 2023
Show threadBen Kanter

@yoginho I appreciate your blog post as it provides context to why you're so frustrated. I'm fine with calling people out, but the manner in which you did it I take issue with. Shouting at someone in repeated posts claiming their worldview is dangerous and delusional and without merit, even if you're correct (!), is not a fruitful way to start a conversation. It's human behavior to avoid such an attack. And even as a passive observer it's unpleasant. So I'm calling you out ;)

And to be sure, I wouldn't care if you were a troll or kook but your ideas are fascinating and I want people to pay attention. I listened to you on Brain Inspired (after this exchange) and it was one of my favorite episodes of the 50 or so I've listened to. I loved in particular the part about limitations of dynamical systems thinking for brains/organisms, and the idea of organismal closure. I'm very sympathetic to your critique of computationalism, too, particularly because functions the brain carries out are ill defined and much of its function is almost surely not algorithmic, in my opinion.

In the podcast, however, you acknowledge the utility of the computational approach for exploring many things the brain does and appreciate that we can (and maybe already have) achieve great insights with that framework. The problem is that some proponents started to confuse the map for the territory, as it were. Much more even handed than this exchange with Blake, and much more likely to get people to listen and discuss!

@NicoleCRust

Sep 17, 2023 at 6:34amWeb
Show threadYogi JaegerSep 17, 2023

Thanks, @beneuroscience, for your engagement (& your nice words about my work).

Hell will freeze over before someone like @tyrell_turing will change their mind or will engage in a true reflection on their world view. It was never my aim to achieve that.

I cultivate a grumpy online persona to make a statement about my frustration with the way philosophy is treated by scientists these days. Also: my provocations reveal the kind of tactics that are used to avoid real discussion about ...

Show threadYogi JaegerSep 17, 2023

@beneuroscience ... fundamental philosophical issues that scientists really *should* be thinking about today.

This kind of discussion would reveal just how shaky much of contemporary research in the life & neurosciences is, not to mention AI research (which is the most metaphysically confused of all) ...

Being nice just leads to deadly silence. That's the standard discussion suppression mechanism. I try to break through it by being a pain in the ass. It's not pleasant, but it often works.

Show threadBen KanterSep 17, 2023
@yoginho Welp I can't say I agree with the approach, but thanks for explaining so I understand where it comes from. Nice to know it's a persona and that you're not actually a jerk :)
Show threadYogi JaegerSep 17, 2023
@beneuroscience Yah. I've heard that one before... 🤓
Show threadEl DuvelleSep 17, 2023
@yoginho @beneuroscience “being nice leads to deadly silence”??
100% disagree. BUT I have to work so I will not engage in a debate about it with someone whose aim is to make themselves heard by not being nice… might come back to this later though :)