This reads like a stream of consciousness, I was unable to extract any salient point after scanning through the post twice, so downvoting on that basis. Consider a more standard and accessible writing style, like this.
Rephrased:
Personally I’m not trying to write in a manner that would get me votes or avoid getting downvotes. It strikes me as rather odd that you can’t find a salient point from this post. Representing internal functions of the limbic system as quantifiable vectors? Represeting the functions of agents in CSF as vectors? Are these not points?
They maybe too obvious or things that for experts would be not worth mentioning. I’m not an expert, so I can’t really tell. But I have not seen specific notions of modeling things happening in the brain this way, despite doing some hobby-style reading on the matter.
Meanwhile the post not being accessible or well-structured seems to me too like a pretty good criticism.
No. There are a variety of different models proposed in computational neuroscience to model the behavior of the brain. Saying: Let’s use math, because math is cool is not a point with much substance.
But I have not seen specific notions of modeling things happening in the brain this way, despite doing some hobby-style reading on the matter.
How many papers or books on computational neuroscience did you read?
“No. There are a variety of different models proposed in computational neuroscience to model the behavior of the brain. Saying: Let’s use math, because math is cool is not a point with much substance.”
Well, I thought they were points, and using math certainly seems like a good idea, but perhaps it is a little too simple.
“How many papers or books on computational neuroscience did you read?”
I did not read any on that particular field. I’m not sure if I would get my answers if I did. But it certainly sounds like a good idea.
Personally I just sort of feel that this style of approach is not taken in psychology, but it might be just my ignorance, or probably is. It may be too obvious or simple.
I still think this post could work to stimulate thought for people without such expertise. It seems to me that the post is getting misunderstood, and it might be due to that people who read it are not very familiar with the brain, or perhaps it’s my own ignorance, that certainly seems like a good bet.
This reads like a stream of consciousness, I was unable to extract any salient point after scanning through the post twice, so downvoting on that basis. Consider a more standard and accessible writing style, like this.
Rephrased: Personally I’m not trying to write in a manner that would get me votes or avoid getting downvotes. It strikes me as rather odd that you can’t find a salient point from this post. Representing internal functions of the limbic system as quantifiable vectors? Represeting the functions of agents in CSF as vectors? Are these not points?
They maybe too obvious or things that for experts would be not worth mentioning. I’m not an expert, so I can’t really tell. But I have not seen specific notions of modeling things happening in the brain this way, despite doing some hobby-style reading on the matter.
Meanwhile the post not being accessible or well-structured seems to me too like a pretty good criticism.
No. There are a variety of different models proposed in computational neuroscience to model the behavior of the brain. Saying: Let’s use math, because math is cool is not a point with much substance.
How many papers or books on computational neuroscience did you read?
“No. There are a variety of different models proposed in computational neuroscience to model the behavior of the brain. Saying: Let’s use math, because math is cool is not a point with much substance.”
Well, I thought they were points, and using math certainly seems like a good idea, but perhaps it is a little too simple.
“How many papers or books on computational neuroscience did you read?”
I did not read any on that particular field. I’m not sure if I would get my answers if I did. But it certainly sounds like a good idea.
Personally I just sort of feel that this style of approach is not taken in psychology, but it might be just my ignorance, or probably is. It may be too obvious or simple.
I still think this post could work to stimulate thought for people without such expertise. It seems to me that the post is getting misunderstood, and it might be due to that people who read it are not very familiar with the brain, or perhaps it’s my own ignorance, that certainly seems like a good bet.
I did try to create a little bit more specific example in the comment above, here’s a link just incase: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ked/vector_psychology/b1bn