Sander van Bree

@sandervanbree@neuromatch.social
472 Followers
168 Following
97 Posts
Postdoc JLU Giessen — How is cognition realized by the brain? Oscillations aficionado, mind sciences omnivore, hip-hop head.
Websitehttps://www.sandervanbree.com/
ORCIDhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4894-5938
Scholarhttps://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=4TW_ogoAAAAJ&hl=en
Iris van Rooij keynote at MathPsych/ICCM 2024

YouTube
This was followed by @sandervanbree who recently published a commentary on said paper arguing that while spatial cells have a clearly defined and understood role in encoding physical space
the cognitive processes involved in the LoT are more complex and cannot be straightforwardly compared to those that govern spatial understanding.
Paper: https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3583404_1/component/file_3583405/content
At today's @CCNiUofGlasgow journal club, @daubman presented a recent TiCS paper by Kazanina and Poeppel arguing that spatial cells in the hippocampus implement predicate logic and thus point to a possible neural implementation of a symbolic Language of Thought (LoT) in the Fodorian sense.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37625973/
The neural ingredients for a language of thought are available - PubMed

The classical notion of a 'language of thought' (LoT), advanced prominently by the philosopher Jerry Fodor, is an influential position in cognitive science whereby the mental representations underpinning thought are considered to be compositional and productive, enabling the construction of new comp …

PubMed

"electric fields...are causally relevant, and...informative."
Why not? They are there. Evolution uses what's available

Decoupling Measurements and Processes: On the Epiphenomenon Debate Surrounding Brain Oscillations in Field Potentials
https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/knjfw
#neuroscience

OSF

🎬 🍿

"Tools for thinking: Overcoming obstacles to theory in psychological science"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WFaI4R88J8

"Tools for thinking: Overcoming obstacles to theory in psychological science" by Iris van Rooij

YouTube

@neuralreckoning

I have trouble moving from that first point of view you outline because it's the only one that narrows in on an interesting and unshakeable phenomenon. Whether that is what the term consciousness commonly refers to or not, I think that's where the hard problem lies.

The minimalist view you summarise seems to take the verbal report and the information processing that leads up to it as that which needs to be explained, but I think those speech actions you mention are our best third-person proxies of the first-person process that is the true target.

To be sure, if consciousness does get defined as a third-person phenomenon (just like heartbeats), and any explanation consists in the causal chain that leads to it, then yes I would say the problem becomes a lot more straightforward and less confusing.

@neuralreckoning

Oh I just meant that the scientific problem is there in addition to the project of explaining memory. I definitely think consciousness has causal impacts.

But I don't think consciousness reduces to a memory subsystem for similar reasons that I don't think phenomena like attention or decision making do. It's hard to conceive of decision making over information that isn't or wasn't part of memory subsystems but I wouldn't say that collapses the story into one dimension or system.

Certainly there are target phenomena (such as a verbal report) for which a model or diagram might integrate and intertwine consciousness and memory, but imo that's different from the question of whether they are one and the same system.

@neuralreckoning

I'd add to what others said that even if consciousness depends on information processing in memory systems this does not entail that the study of consciousness reduces to the study of a memory subsystem.

I view the problem of consciousness as one that's stacked on top of memory. Memory gives you the information, which somehow becomes coloured with subjective experience. We know a priori it need not happen that way (see e.g. hard drives or DNA), and as such the task at hand is to explain the seemingly extra phenomenon of qualia.

Done writing the book.

(Deep inhale).

~90K words. A few years of work. A transformative journey that did not end at all as I thought when I started. I'm grateful to have done it - what a privilege. A much bigger conceptual project than anything I've done up to this point.

I got to think intensely for a better part of a few years (in parallel to running a lab and teaching as a professor). Somehow there was not time for that before. I'm not exactly sure where I found it; I just did.

There will be many revisions going forward. And it won't hit the shelves anytime soon. But I'm going to pause and celebrate this moment, where every one of the bits are finally in place. I learned so much along the way. Even today, on the last day, I was fascinated, and I'm grateful. (That said, I'm also a bit tired).

What's the book about? A slice of the spirit behind it is captured here: https://www.thetransmitter.org/systems-neuroscience/is-the-brain-uncontrollable-like-the-weather/

Is the brain uncontrollable, like the weather?

The brain may be chaotic. Does that mean our efforts to control it are doomed?

The Transmitter: Neuroscience News and Perspectives
What is Explanation in Neuroscience? | Dr. Mazviita Chirimuuta (Part 1 of 4)

YouTube