Perspectives on the Neuroscience of Cognition and Consciousness

The origin and current use of the concepts of computation, representation and information in Neuroscience are examined and conceptual flaws are identified which vitiate their usefulness for addressing problems of the neural basis of Cognition and Consciousness. In contrast, a convergence of views is presented to support the characterization of the Nervous System as a complex dynamical system operating in the metastable regime, and capable of evolving to configurations and transitions in phase space with potential relevance for Cognition and Consciousness

Evidence for Information Processing in the Brain

Many cognitive and neuroscientists attempt to assign biological functions to brain structures. To achieve this end, scientists perform experiments that relate the physical properties of brain structures to organism-level abilities, behaviors, and environmental stimuli. Researchers make use of various measuring instruments and methodological techniques to obtain this kind of relational evidence, ranging from single-unit electrophysiology and optogenetics to whole brain functional MRI. Each experiment is intended to identify brain function. However, seemingly independent of experimental evidence, many cognitive scientists, neuroscientists, and philosophers of science assume that the brain processes information as a scientific fact. In this work we analyze categories of relational evidence and find that although physical features of specific brain areas selectively covary with external stimuli and abilities, and that the brain shows reliable causal organization, there is no direct evidence supporting the claim that information processing is a natural function of the brain. We conclude that the belief in brain information processing adds little to the science of cognitive science and functions primarily as a metaphor for efficient communication of neuroscientific data

Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics

Neuroeconomics uses knowledge about brain mechanisms to inform economic analysis, and roots economics in biology. It opens up the "black box" of the brain, much as organizational economics adds detail to the theory of the firm. Neuroscientists use many tools— including brain imaging, behavior of patients with localized brain lesions, animal behavior, and recording single neuron activity. The key insight for economics is that the brain is composed of multiple systems which interact. Controlled systems ("executive function") interrupt automatic ones. Emotions and cognition both guide decisions. Just as prices and allocations emerge from the interaction of two processes—supply and demand— individual decisions can be modeled as the result of two (or more) processes interacting. Indeed, "dual-process" models of this sort are better rooted in neuroscientific fact, and more empirically accurate, than single-process models (such as utility-maximization). We discuss how brain evidence complicates standard assumptions about basic preference, to include homeostasis and other kinds of state-dependence. We also discuss applications to intertemporal choice, risk and decision making, and game theory. Intertemporal choice appears to be domain-specific and heavily influenced by emotion. The simplified ß-d of quasi-hyperbolic discounting is supported by activation in distinct regions of limbic and cortical systems. In risky decision, imaging data tentatively support the idea that gains and losses are coded separately, and that ambiguity is distinct from risk, because it activates fear and discomfort regions. (Ironically, lesion patients who do not receive fear signals in prefrontal cortex are "rationally" neutral toward ambiguity.) Game theory studies show the effect of brain regions implicated in "theory of mind", correlates of strategic skill, and effects of hormones and other biological variables. Finally, economics can contribute to neuroscience because simple rational-choice models are useful for understanding highly-evolved behavior like motor actions that earn rewards, and Bayesian integration of sensorimotor information

Classification-based prediction of effective connectivity between timeseries with a realistic cortical network model

Effective connectivity measures the pattern of causal interactions between brain regions. Traditionally, these patterns of causality are inferred from brain recordings using either non-parametric, i.e., model-free, or parametric, i.e., model-based, approaches. The latter approaches, when based on biophysically plausible models, have the advantage that they may facilitate the interpretation of causality in terms of underlying neural mechanisms. Recent biophysically plausible neural network models of recurrent microcircuits have shown the ability to reproduce well the characteristics of real neural activity and can be applied to model interacting cortical circuits. Unfortunately, however, it is challenging to invert these models in order to estimate effective connectivity from observed data. Here, we propose to use a classification-based method to approximate the result of such complex model inversion. The classifier predicts the pattern of causal interactions given a multivariate timeseries as input. The classifier is trained on a large number of pairs of multivariate timeseries and the respective pattern of causal interactions, which are generated by simulation from the neural network model. In simulated experiments, we show that the proposed method is much more accurate in detecting the causal structure of timeseries than current best practice methods. Additionally, we present further results to characterize the validity of the neural network model and the ability of the classifier to adapt to the generative model of the data

Can Science Explain Consciousness?

For diverse reasons, the problem of phenomenal consciousness is persistently challenging. Mental terms are characteristically ambiguous, researchers have philosophical biases, secondary qualities are excluded from objective description, and philosophers love to argue. Adhering to a regime of efficient causes and third-person descriptions, science as it has been defined has no place for subjectivity or teleology. A solution to the “hard problem” of consciousness will require a radical approach: to take the point of view of the cognitive system itself. To facilitate this approach, a concept of agency is introduced along with a different understanding of intentionality. Following this approach reveals that the autopoietic cognitive system constructs phenomenality through acts of fiat, which underlie perceptual completion effects and “filling in”—and, by implication, phenomenology in general. It creates phenomenality much as we create meaning in language, through the use of symbols that it assigns meaning in the context of an embodied evolutionary history that is the source of valuation upon which meaning depends. Phenomenality is a virtual representation to itself by an executive agent (the conscious self) tasked with monitoring the state of the organism and its environment, planning future action, and coordinating various sub- agencies. Consciousness is not epiphenomenal, but serves a function for higher organisms that is distinct from that of unconscious processing. While a strictly scientific solution to the hard problem is not possible for a science that excludes the subjectivity it seeks to explain, there is hope to at least psychologically bridge the explanatory gulf between mind and matter, and perhaps hope for a broader definition of science