Against neuroclassicism: On the perils of armchair neuroscience

dc.citation.firstpage329en_US
dc.citation.issueNumber3en_US
dc.citation.journalTitleMind & Languageen_US
dc.citation.lastpage355en_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber37en_US
dc.contributor.authorMorgan, Alexen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-16T15:37:33Zen_US
dc.date.available2022-06-16T15:37:33Zen_US
dc.date.issued2022en_US
dc.description.abstractNeuroclassicism is the view that cognition is explained by “classical” computing mechanisms in the nervous system that exhibit a clear demarcation between processing machinery and read–write memory. The psychologist C. R. Gallistel has mounted a sophisticated defense of neuroclassicism by drawing from ethology and computability theory to argue that animal brains necessarily contain read–write memory mechanisms. This argument threatens to undermine the “connectionist” orthodoxy in contemporary neuroscience, which does not seem to recognize any such mechanisms. In this paper I argue that the neuroclassicist critique rests on a misunderstanding of how computability theory constrains theorizing about natural computing mechanisms.en_US
dc.identifier.citationMorgan, Alex. "Against neuroclassicism: On the perils of armchair neuroscience." <i>Mind & Language,</i> 37, no. 3 (2022) Wiley: 329-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12304.en_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12304en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1911/112465en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.titleAgainst neuroclassicism: On the perils of armchair neuroscienceen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.dcmiTexten_US
dc.type.publicationpublisher versionen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
morgan_against-neuroclassicism.pdf
Size:
1.61 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: