Situated Neural Representations: Solving the Problems of Content.

Situated approaches to cognition maintain that cognition is embodied, embedded, enactive, and affective (and extended, but that is not relevant here). Situated approaches are often pitched as alternatives to computational and representational approaches, according to which cognition is computation over representations. I argue that, far from being opposites, situatedness and neural representation are more deeply intertwined than anyone suspected. To show this, I introduce a neurocomputational account of cognition that relies on neural representations. I argue not only that this account is compatible with (non-question-begging) situated approaches, but also that it requires embodiment, embeddedness, enaction, and affect at its very core. That is, constructing neural representations and their semantic content, and learning computational processes appropriate for their content, requires a tight dynamic interaction between nervous system, body, and environment. Most importantly, I argue that situatedness is needed to give a satisfactory account of neural representation: neurocognitive systems that are embodied, embedded, affective, dynamically interact with their environment, and use feedback from their interaction to shape their own representations and computations (1) can construct neural representations with original semantic content, (2) their neural vehicles and the way they are processed are automatically coordinated with their content, (3) such content is causally efficacious, (4) is determinate enough for the system's purposes, (5) represents the distal stimulus, and (6) can misrepresent. This proposal hints at what is needed to build artifacts with some of the basic cognitive capacities possessed by neurocognitive systems.

Quantum-like behavior without quantum physics III : Logic and memory.

We employ some of the machinery developed in previous work to investigate the inferential and memory functions of quantum-like neural networks. We set up a logical apparatus to implement this in the form of a Gentzen sequent calculus which codifies some of the combinatory rules for the state spaces of the neuronal networks introduced earlier. We discuss memory storage in this context and along the way find formal proof that synchronicity promotes binding and storage. These results lead to an algorithmic fragment in calculus that simulates the memory function known as pattern completion. This claim is tested by noting that the failure of certain steps in the algorithm leads to memory deficits essentially identical to those found in such pathologies as Alzheimer's dementia, schizophrenia, and certain forms of autism. Moreover, a specific "power-of-two" wiring architecture and computational logic, which have been postulated and observed across many brain circuits, emerge spontaneously from our model. We draw conclusions concerning the possible nature of such mental processes qua computations.

Quantum-like behavior without quantum physics II. A quantum-like model of neural network dynamics.

In earlier work, we laid out the foundation for explaining the quantum-like behavior of neural systems in the basic kinematic case of clusters of neuron-like units. Here we extend this approach to networks and begin developing a dynamical theory for them. Our approach provides a novel mathematical foundation for neural dynamics and computation which abstracts away from lower-level biophysical details in favor of information-processing features of neural activity. The theory makes predictions concerning such pathologies as schizophrenia, dementias, and epilepsy, for which some evidence has accrued. It also suggests a model of memory retrieval mechanisms. As further proof of principle, we analyze certain energy-like eigenstates of the 13 three-neuron motif classes according to our theory and argue that their quantum-like superpositional nature has a bearing on their observed structural integrity.

Quantum-like behavior without quantum physics I : Kinematics of neural-like systems.

Recently there has been much interest in the possible quantum-like behavior of the human brain in such functions as cognition, the mental lexicon, memory, etc., producing a vast literature. These studies are both empirical and theoretical, the tenets of the theory in question being mainly, and apparently inevitably, those of quantum physics itself, for lack of other arenas in which quantum-like properties are presumed to obtain. However, attempts to explain this behavior on the basis of actual quantum physics going on at the atomic or molecular level within some element of brain or neuronal anatomy (other than the ordinary quantum physics that underlies everything), do not seem to survive much scrutiny. Moreover, it has been found empirically that the usual physics-like Hilbert space model seems not to apply in detail to human cognition in the large. In this paper we lay the groundwork for a theory that might explain the provenance of quantum-like behavior in complex systems whose internal structure is essentially hidden or inaccessible. The approach is via the logic obeyed by these systems which is similar to, but not identical with, the logic obeyed by actual quantum systems. The results reveal certain effects in such systems which, though quantum-like, are not identical to the kinds of quantum effects found in physics. These effects increase with the size of the system.

Foundations of computational neuroscience.

Most computational neuroscientists assume that nervous systems compute and process information. We discuss foundational issues such as what we mean by 'computation' and 'information processing' in nervous systems; whether computation and information processing are matters of objective fact or of conventional, observer-dependent description; and how computational descriptions and explanations are related to other levels of analysis and organization.

Neural computation and the computational theory of cognition.

We begin by distinguishing computationalism from a number of other theses that are sometimes conflated with it. We also distinguish between several important kinds of computation: computation in a generic sense, digital computation, and analog computation. Then, we defend a weak version of computationalism-neural processes are computations in the generic sense. After that, we reject on empirical grounds the common assimilation of neural computation to either analog or digital computation, concluding that neural computation is sui generis. Analog computation requires continuous signals; digital computation requires strings of digits. But current neuroscientific evidence indicates that typical neural signals, such as spike trains, are graded like continuous signals but are constituted by discrete functional elements (spikes); thus, typical neural signals are neither continuous signals nor strings of digits. It follows that neural computation is sui generis. Finally, we highlight three important consequences of a proper understanding of neural computation for the theory of cognition. First, understanding neural computation requires a specially designed mathematical theory (or theories) rather than the mathematical theories of analog or digital computation. Second, several popular views about neural computation turn out to be incorrect. Third, computational theories of cognition that rely on non-neural notions of computation ought to be replaced or reinterpreted in terms of neural computation.

Information processing, computation, and cognition.

Computation and information processing are among the most fundamental notions in cognitive science. They are also among the most imprecisely discussed. Many cognitive scientists take it for granted that cognition involves computation, information processing, or both - although others disagree vehemently. Yet different cognitive scientists use 'computation' and 'information processing' to mean different things, sometimes without realizing that they do. In addition, computation and information processing are surrounded by several myths; first and foremost, that they are the same thing. In this paper, we address this unsatisfactory state of affairs by presenting a general and theory-neutral account of computation and information processing. We also apply our framework by analyzing the relations between computation and information processing on one hand and classicism, connectionism, and computational neuroscience on the other. We defend the relevance to cognitive science of both computation, at least in a generic sense, and information processing, in three important senses of the term. Our account advances several foundational debates in cognitive science by untangling some of their conceptual knots in a theory-neutral way. By leveling the playing field, we pave the way for the future resolution of the debates' empirical aspects.

Are prototypes and exemplars used in distinct cognitive processes?

We argue that Machery provides no convincing evidence that prototypes and exemplars are typically used in distinct cognitive processes. This partially undermines the fourth tenet of the Heterogeneity Hypothesis and thus casts doubts on Machery's way of splitting concepts into different kinds. Although Machery may be right that concepts split into different kinds, such kinds may be different from those countenanced by the Heterogeneity Hypothesis.

Some neural networks compute, others don't.

I address whether neural networks perform computations in the sense of computability theory and computer science. I explicate and defend the following theses. (1) Many neural networks compute--they perform computations. (2) Some neural networks compute in a classical way. Ordinary digital computers, which are very large networks of logic gates, belong in this class of neural networks. (3) Other neural networks compute in a non-classical way. (4) Yet other neural networks do not perform computations. Brains may well fall into this last class.