Is information theory, or the assumptions that surround it, holding back neuroscience?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 42 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The challenges raised in this article are not with information theory per se, but the assumptions surrounding it. Neuroscience isn't sufficiently critical about the appropriate ‘receiver’ or ‘channel’, focuses on decoding ‘parts’, and often relies on a flawed ‘veridicality’ assumption. If these problematic assumptions were questioned, information theory could be better directed to help us understand how the brain works.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Continuous Neural Spikes and Information Theory.Corey J. Maley - 2020 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 11 (3):647-667.
The Love of Neuroscience: A Sociological Account.Gabriel Abend - 2018 - Sociological Theory 36 (1):88-116.
Text structure and proof structure.C. F. M. Vermeulen - 2000 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (3):273-311.
Just Information Warfare.Mariarosaria Taddeo - 2016 - Topoi 35 (1):213-224.
Transcending Turing computability.B. J. Maclennan - 2003 - Minds and Machines 13 (1):3-22.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-11-29

Downloads
29 (#538,668)

6 months
20 (#126,159)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations