Current Events > Idk why cognitive scientists reference the brain when they don't study it

(+) Yeah! (+)

Seems to create a lot of confusion.

---

... a lot of contusion
---

This is a bit like criticizing writers for using language when they're not linguists.

---

It's wild how we understand next to nothing about how our brain works, when our brains are literally studying themselves. Our brains don't know how our brains work.
---

s0nicfan posted...

This is a bit like criticizing writers for using language when they're not linguists.

Naw, just saw a dissertation with the word "brain" in the title that literally contains no neural data or models.

It's like sometime at the turn of the century cognitive scientists got deeply insecure about what they study and started substituting "realistic computational process" with "brain".

---

COVxy posted...

Naw, just saw a dissertation with the word "brain" in the title that literally contains no neural data or models.

It's like sometime at the turn of the century cognitive scientists got deeply insecure about what they study and started substituting "realistic computational process" with "brain".

So is the issue that they're conflating "brain" with "mind"? Even if they're not looking at neural models, everything the "mind" does is driven by the "brain" so its not like they're disconnected. It's more like micro and macro economics where the models differ but they're part of the same process.

---

s0nicfan posted...

So is the issue that they're conflating "brain" with "mind"? Even if they're not looking at neural models, everything the "mind" does is driven by the "brain" so its not like they're disconnected. It's more like micro and macro economics where the models differ but they're part of the same process.

I mean, by the same notion, as a neuroscientist, I study the way atoms move.

---

COVxy posted...

I mean, by the same notion, as a neuroscientist, I study the way atoms move.

If an atomic scientists took issue with how lazily you as a neuroscientist look at transfer of electrons when talking about neuron excitability and action potential, you'd probably think they were being a bit nitpicky as well.

---

s0nicfan posted...

If an atomic scientists took issue with how lazily you as a neuroscientist look at transfer of electrons when talking about neuron excitability and action potential, you'd probably think they were being a bit nitpicky as well.

Naw, because I simply don't measure or claim to measure anything at the level of the atom lol.

Now if they had issues with the equations used to simplify electrical dynamics in neural systems, that's something to seriously consider. Physicists usually want to go in the opposite direction though, push to simplify while biologists fight for complexity. But again, that's not the same analogical situation.

---

It's almost like every field has different standards for their technical language.
---

*shrugs* I just think you're being a bit overprotective of the word "brain" because it's your job in the way that I as a computer scientist get miffed if someone says I work "in IT".

I get what you're saying, but from my perspective if they say "brain" and they're talking about "mind" it's not hard to use basic context clues to know what they're talking about.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

It's almost like every field has different standards for their technical language.

It's really not the same thing as jargon.

Otherwise you would be fine with them saying "liver processes" when discussing cognitive tasks. Because it's just field related jargon, they don't actually mean the liver.

---

this is weird thing to get hung up on
---

I suppose, or at least this is a weird place for me to rant about it.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's wild how we understand next to nothing about how our brain works, when our brains are literally studying themselves. Our brains don't know how our brains work.

Not really surprising, I'm pretty sure rat brains and microchips have no idea how they're functioning either.
---

I feel like most people would be amazed at how much we actually know.

I thought the same thing when I started undergrad.

Don't get me wrong, we have a long way before understanding. But it's not a big black box that the media will convince you it is.

---

COVxy posted...

I feel like most people would be amazed at how much we actually know.

I thought the same thing when I started undergrad.

Don't get me wrong, we have a long way before understanding. But it's not a big black box that the media will convince you it is.

What have been some recent revelations in our understanding?
---

Vol2tex posted...

What have been some recent revelations in our understanding?

Science tends to be more incremental than that. But a recent paper that I've read that will likely have the largest impact on the field:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/729640v2

Pretty much the way that theory has dealt with dopamine reward prediction error (for learning) has been to treat it as a global scalar value. This paper shows demonstrates a physiological mechanism for dopamine to modify specific circuitry in the striatum, which we know recieves topographically organized input from the cortex.

Simply: we know that specific functions use distinct cortical and subcortical resources, but until now it wasn't clear how learning signals from dopamine modified specific function.

---

COVxy topic
---

RdVEHfJqAvUPIbk posted...

COVxy topic

There are so many petty things that people post about constantly on CE. At least there's a little bit of intellect behind this one.

---

Here's to hoping neuroscientists get it together and reach the heights Jung did over half a century ago

---

COVxy posted...

Vol2tex posted...

What have been some recent revelations in our understanding?

Science tends to be more incremental than that. But a recent paper that I've read that will likely have the largest impact on the field:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/729640v2

Pretty much the way that theory has dealt with dopamine reward prediction error (for learning) has been to treat it as a global scalar value. This paper shows demonstrates a physiological mechanism for dopamine to modify specific circuitry in the striatum, which we know recieves topographically organized input from the cortex.

Simply: we know that specific functions use distinct cortical and subcortical resources, but until now it wasn't clear how learning signals from dopamine modified specific function.

Thanks, I'm very fascinated with the brain so this will be an interesting paper to read.
---

Hey do you want to rate my concept lore spread sheet?
---

Are you really upset about this?
---

I'm surprised they get away with it. Putting keywords in your title that you don't discuss feels like a rookie mistake
---

God I hate academics
---

Godnorgosh posted...

Epistemologists: I don't know why neuroscientists reference neurons when they don't know anything.

The ultimate troll specialization.

It's not about knowing something, it's about studying something. If you don't work with brains, there's no reason to frame your work with the word brain. Like it's literally gotten you nothing, except maybe to those who fetishize brain stuff, like people who think it's not real science unless it has it.

---

COVxy posted...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



It's not about knowing something, it's about studying something. If you don't work with brains, there's no reason to frame your work with the word brain. Like it's literally gotten you nothing, except maybe to those who fetishize brain stuff, like people who think it's not real science unless it has it.

It also advertises your work to the wrong scientists, so it's not very practical
---

scar the 1 posted...

It also advertises your work to the wrong scientists, so it's not very practical

Yeah, exactly.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



What is 'that'?

---

Cool beans.

I do think that it's interesting, sociologically. In psychology, there's a lot of animosity towards neuroimaging people because the psych people feel they are being pressured to use these expensive, often irrelevant, methods.

---