- Gratuit : téléchargez l'application Amazon pour iOS et Android et facilitez vos achats sur smartphones et tablettes ! Découvrez les avantages de l'application Amazon.
- Publiez votre livre sur Kindle Direct Publishing en format papier ou numérique : c'est simple et gratuit et vous pourrez toucher des millions de lecteurs. En savoir plus ici
Téléchargez l'application Kindle gratuite et commencez à lire des livres Kindle instantanément sur votre smartphone, tablette ou ordinateur - aucun appareil Kindle n'est requis.
Lisez instantanément sur votre navigateur avec Kindle pour le Web.
Utilisation de l'appareil photo de votre téléphone portable - scannez le code ci-dessous et téléchargez l'application Kindle.
Image indisponible
Image non disponible pour la
couleur :
couleur :
-
-
-
- Pour voir cette vidéo, téléchargez Flash Player
Suivre l'auteur
Une erreur est survenue. Veuillez renouveler votre requête plus tard.
OK
Memory and the Computational Brain: Why Cognitive Science will Transform Neuroscience Relié – 3 avril 2009
Édition en Anglais
de
C. R. Gallistel
(Auteur),
Adam Philip King
(Auteur)
| Prix Amazon | Neuf à partir de | Occasion à partir de |
|
Format Kindle
"Veuillez réessayer" | — | — |
|
Relié
"Veuillez réessayer" | 109,38 € | 109,38 € | — |
- Format Kindle
37,62 € Lisez avec notre Appli gratuite - Relié
109,38 €3 autres Neuf - Broché
54,78 €4 autres D'occasion 9 autres Neuf
{"desktop_buybox_group_1":[{"displayPrice":"109,38 €","priceAmount":109.38,"currencySymbol":"€","integerValue":"109","decimalSeparator":",","fractionalValue":"38","symbolPosition":"right","hasSpace":true,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"z25McpnV19W18Fp8TEtKjjJ6MDMzm5BdzSXwaMsaiyUWY95ewwBYaD4h%2BvbJ8b3BDqiEFyKpGEsO8wx1TELqeEEz9b1Y%2BLmKkE8OFMzIPnx%2Bqe4odoW7vg7lFw6t1jLB2QAk6jtTRCMrqIywS1e8FyicZGWkX%2BIUHnjDzNahOtouLr5V9zIatA%3D%3D","locale":"fr-FR","buyingOptionType":"NEW","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":0}]}
Options d'achat et paniers Plus
Memory and the Computational Brain offers a provocative argument that goes to the heart of neuroscience, proposing that the field can and should benefit from the recent advances of cognitive science and the development of information theory over the course of the last several decades.
- A provocative argument that impacts across the fields of linguistics, cognitive science, and neuroscience, suggesting new perspectives on learning mechanisms in the brain
- Proposes that the field of neuroscience can and should benefit from the recent advances of cognitive science and the development of information theory
- Suggests that the architecture of the brain is structured precisely for learning and for memory, and integrates the concept of an addressable read/write memory mechanism into the foundations of neuroscience
- Based on lectures in the prestigious Blackwell–Maryland Lectures in Language and Cognition, and now significantly reworked and expanded to make it ideal for students and faculty
- Nombre de pages de l'édition imprimée336 pages
- LangueAnglais
- ÉditeurWiley–Blackwell
- Date de publication3 avril 2009
- Dimensions18.03 x 2.59 x 25.4 cm
- ISBN-101405122870
- ISBN-13978-1405122870
Commentaires client
4,7 étoiles sur 5
4,7 sur 5
8 évaluations globales
Comment fonctionnent les avis et les évaluations des clients
Les avis clients, y compris le nombre d’étoiles du produit, aident les clients à en savoir plus sur le produit et à décider s'il leur convient.
Pour calculer le nombre global d’étoiles et la ventilation en pourcentage par étoile, nous n'utilisons pas une simple moyenne. Au lieu de cela, notre système prend en compte des éléments tels que la date récente d'un commentaire et si l'auteur de l'avis a acheté l'article sur Amazon. Les avis sont également analysés pour vérifier leur fiabilité.
En savoir plus sur le fonctionnement des avis clients sur AmazonMeilleurs commentaires provenant d’autres pays
Michael DeBellis
5,0 sur 5 étoiles
An Essential Book for Anyone Interested in Theoretical Psychology
Commenté aux États-Unis le 1 mai 2017
There are a very small number of books that made a major change in the way I think. Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures changed the way I think about language and philosophy. Kent Beck’s Extreme Programming Explained changed the way I develop software. Dawkins’ Selfish Gene gave me my first true understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Memory and the Computational Brain is one of those books. It changed the way I think about psychology.
The essence of the book is that the proper model for human cognition is not neural networks but a Turing Machine. A Neural Network is a (very complex) Finite State Machine (FSA). It is inherently more limited computationally than a Turing Machine because it can't represent historical data. This is the reason that Turing created the Turing Machine model for his paper on the Entscheidungsproblem (On Computable Numbers), he realized he needed a formalism more powerful than an FSA that included memory.
The question that Gallistel and King raise is long term memory. Not muscle memory which is described by Hebbian conditioning (changing the conductance and connections of a neural network based on learning) but episodic memory such as “who is the current president?” The authors make a strong case that there is no good neural net model for this type of memory and that the structure of such networks makes them unsuited to representing historical data in a scalable manner. Of course, with computers this issue never arises because Artificial Neural Nets (ANNs) just use the computer memory (e.g., arrays, databases, spreadsheets). However, many connectionists ignore this issue when it comes to the brain. The authors provide detailed analysis of the proposed neural network based solutions to episodic memory and show that such approaches could not scale to the memory requirements of Scrub Jays (which are known to cache food for the winter in tens of thousands of locations) let alone humans.
When one gives this a bit of thought it seems (at least to me) very intuitive. Of course, the output of one network can be the input for another but ultimately the input and output of all ANNs is some form of data which is virtually never represented as a neural network and it seems intuitive that the brain must function in a similar way, i.e., have a different mechanism for storing the input and output of neural nets that is analogous to addressable computer memory. The authors provide strong arguments for this view.
They hypothesize that the mechanism for storing episodic memory is some form of molecular code such as RNA or DNA. The advantage of such a code is that it is orders of magnitude more efficient than an FSA for storing data. Such a code would help to address one of the biggest issues with computing by neurons: computation by neurons is orders of magnitude slower than computation with computers. E.g., the interval between "spikes" (signals from other neurons) to the action potential (firing) of a neuron is on the order of half a millisecond and the time for a neuron to return to its base state after firing takes several milliseconds. A modern computer can execute at least one floating point instruction in .001 of a microsecond (a microsecond of course = .001 milliseconds). Yet the brain of a child can outperform computers on many tasks.
Anyone interested in psychology, whether cognitive, evolutionary, neuropsychology, or behaviorism should read this book. Even if you completely disagree with the authors, I think you will find the questions they raise fascinating and their elucidation of concepts from computer science such as Shannon’s Information Theory and the theory of computation extremely clear as is their description of how such concepts are essential to a theory of human cognition.
The essence of the book is that the proper model for human cognition is not neural networks but a Turing Machine. A Neural Network is a (very complex) Finite State Machine (FSA). It is inherently more limited computationally than a Turing Machine because it can't represent historical data. This is the reason that Turing created the Turing Machine model for his paper on the Entscheidungsproblem (On Computable Numbers), he realized he needed a formalism more powerful than an FSA that included memory.
The question that Gallistel and King raise is long term memory. Not muscle memory which is described by Hebbian conditioning (changing the conductance and connections of a neural network based on learning) but episodic memory such as “who is the current president?” The authors make a strong case that there is no good neural net model for this type of memory and that the structure of such networks makes them unsuited to representing historical data in a scalable manner. Of course, with computers this issue never arises because Artificial Neural Nets (ANNs) just use the computer memory (e.g., arrays, databases, spreadsheets). However, many connectionists ignore this issue when it comes to the brain. The authors provide detailed analysis of the proposed neural network based solutions to episodic memory and show that such approaches could not scale to the memory requirements of Scrub Jays (which are known to cache food for the winter in tens of thousands of locations) let alone humans.
When one gives this a bit of thought it seems (at least to me) very intuitive. Of course, the output of one network can be the input for another but ultimately the input and output of all ANNs is some form of data which is virtually never represented as a neural network and it seems intuitive that the brain must function in a similar way, i.e., have a different mechanism for storing the input and output of neural nets that is analogous to addressable computer memory. The authors provide strong arguments for this view.
They hypothesize that the mechanism for storing episodic memory is some form of molecular code such as RNA or DNA. The advantage of such a code is that it is orders of magnitude more efficient than an FSA for storing data. Such a code would help to address one of the biggest issues with computing by neurons: computation by neurons is orders of magnitude slower than computation with computers. E.g., the interval between "spikes" (signals from other neurons) to the action potential (firing) of a neuron is on the order of half a millisecond and the time for a neuron to return to its base state after firing takes several milliseconds. A modern computer can execute at least one floating point instruction in .001 of a microsecond (a microsecond of course = .001 milliseconds). Yet the brain of a child can outperform computers on many tasks.
Anyone interested in psychology, whether cognitive, evolutionary, neuropsychology, or behaviorism should read this book. Even if you completely disagree with the authors, I think you will find the questions they raise fascinating and their elucidation of concepts from computer science such as Shannon’s Information Theory and the theory of computation extremely clear as is their description of how such concepts are essential to a theory of human cognition.
Akiko Yano
5,0 sur 5 étoiles
Why Gallistel & King Are Right
Commenté aux États-Unis le 7 février 2022
The argument of this book is water-tight:
1. The brain is a computational device
2. All efficient computational devices have a processor and a tape (a read/write memory)
3. The brain is efficient
Conclusion: The brain has a processor and a tape (a read/write memory)
No (computational) neuroscientist would disagree with 1. No computer scientist would disagree with 2. But because neuroscientists know (and this is true) that synapses are noisy and inefficient, and believe (as a matter of Humean faith) that the synapse is the only candidate for memory storage in the brain, they have to deny 3. As a result, neuroscience rejects the conclusion. That's why Gallistel and King spend so much time considering brains like those of scrub jays, bees and ants - all of whom perform memory feats that mathematically belie the idea that reverberatory synaptic loops are the only way to encode memory. There's even a section that persuasively argues that Pavlov's dog is NOT associating (in the sense of Hebbian rewiring). An incredible book that will change your mind if you are not part of the church of Hume.
1. The brain is a computational device
2. All efficient computational devices have a processor and a tape (a read/write memory)
3. The brain is efficient
Conclusion: The brain has a processor and a tape (a read/write memory)
No (computational) neuroscientist would disagree with 1. No computer scientist would disagree with 2. But because neuroscientists know (and this is true) that synapses are noisy and inefficient, and believe (as a matter of Humean faith) that the synapse is the only candidate for memory storage in the brain, they have to deny 3. As a result, neuroscience rejects the conclusion. That's why Gallistel and King spend so much time considering brains like those of scrub jays, bees and ants - all of whom perform memory feats that mathematically belie the idea that reverberatory synaptic loops are the only way to encode memory. There's even a section that persuasively argues that Pavlov's dog is NOT associating (in the sense of Hebbian rewiring). An incredible book that will change your mind if you are not part of the church of Hume.
Paul R. Adams
3,0 sur 5 étoiles
From life to mind
Commenté aux États-Unis le 6 mai 2010
Gallistel correctly argues that synapses are too inefficient to act as the "Turing tape" that is necessary for (symbolic) computation, though his reasoning is wrong: the real problem with synapses is that their plasticity interacts, as a result of their extremely close-packing (which is precisely what makes them potentially so useful). This "crosstalk" can undermine sophisticated, quasi-symbolic, synaptic learning. But his proposed "solution", that some unknown new neural storage process analogous to DNA underpins powerful quasi-symbolic brain computations, is pie-in the-sky. Nature is a tinkerer, and it seems much more likely that she has simply patched up the unavoidable defects of synapses using largely ready-made materials. In particular, it's likely, though not proven, that the neocortex is specialised to implement a type of "synaptic proofreading", which allows synapses to act as symbols (see syndar dot org). And the same basic idea, proofreading, also underlies the extraordinarily accurate copying process that underpins Darwinian evolution. So "mind" would be a synaptic version of "life".
John
5,0 sur 5 étoiles
An Excellent Critique
Commenté aux États-Unis le 20 avril 2010
The authors' thesis is that since the brain computes, it has to instantiate known information processing and computational principles. They discuss many of these principles and crituque current neuroscience computational assumptions and models as paying insufficient attention to them. They present several biological cases in some detail to illustrate how the current connectionist/neuronet/synaptic weight approach is insufficient to the challenges these cases present. Finally, they they describe specific functions and processes we should be looking for in the brain to explain the behaviors presented in the cases.
It is an excellent book and in the end may warrant its subtitle, "Why Congnitive Science Will Transform Neuroscience." I highly recommend it to anyone who works in neuroscience and especially those who work in computational neuroscience.
It is an excellent book and in the end may warrant its subtitle, "Why Congnitive Science Will Transform Neuroscience." I highly recommend it to anyone who works in neuroscience and especially those who work in computational neuroscience.
|
Vos articles vus récemment et vos recommandations en vedette
Après avoir consulté un produit, regardez ici pour revenir simplement sur les pages qui vous intéressent.
Retour en haut
Pour mieux nous connaître
Gagnez de l'argent
Moyens de paiement Amazon
- Conditions générales de vente
- Vos informations personnelles
- Cookies
- Annonces basées sur vos centres d’intérêt
