British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (3):697-723 (2012)
|Abstract||According to a growing trend in theoretical neuroscience, the human perceptual system is akin to a Bayesian machine. The aim of this article is to clearly articulate the claims that perception can be considered Bayesian inference and that the brain can be considered a Bayesian machine, some of the epistemological challenges to these claims; and some of the implications of these claims. We address two questions: (i) How are Bayesian models used in theoretical neuroscience? (ii) From the use of Bayesian models in theoretical neuroscience, have we learned or can we hope to learn that perception is Bayesian inference or that the brain is a Bayesian machine? From actual practice in theoretical neuroscience, we argue for three claims. First, currently Bayesian models do not provide mechanistic explanations; instead they are useful devices for predicting and systematizing observational statements about people's performances in a variety of perceptual tasks. That is, currently we should have an instrumentalist attitude towards Bayesian models in neuroscience. Second, the inference typically drawn from Bayesian behavioural performance in a variety of perceptual tasks to underlying Bayesian mechanisms should be understood within the three-level framework laid out by David Marr (  ). Third, we can hope to learn that perception is Bayesian inference or that the brain is a Bayesian machine to the extent that Bayesian models will prove successful in yielding secure and informative predictions of both subjects' perceptual performance and features of the underlying neural mechanisms|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Giuseppe Boccignone & Roberto Cordeschi, Bayesian Models and Simulations in Cognitive Science. Models and Simulations 2.
Frederick Eberhardt & David Danks (2011). Confirmation in the Cognitive Sciences: The Problematic Case of Bayesian Models. Minds and Machines 21 (3):389-410.
Bence Nanay (2012). Bayes or Determinables? What Does the Bidirectional Hierarchical Model of Brain Functions Tell Us About the Nature of Perceptual Representation? Frontiers in Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology.
Jim Hopkins (2012). Psychoanalysis Representation and Neuroscience: The Freudian Unconscious and the Bayesian Brain. In A. Fotopoulu, D. Pfaff & M. Conway (eds.), From the Couch to the Lab: Psychoanalysis, Neuroscience and Cognitive Psychology in Dialoge. OUP.
Miklós Rédei (1992). When Can Non-Commutative Statistical Inference Be Bayesian? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (2):129 – 132.
Miklós Rédei (1992). When Can Non‐Commutative Statistical Inference Be Bayesian? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (2):129-132.
Robert A. M. Gregson (1998). Understanding Bayesian Procedures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):201-202.
Geoffrey Hellman (1997). Bayes and Beyond. Philosophy of Science 64 (2):191-221.
Patrick Maher (2010). Bayesian Probability. Synthese 172 (1).
Festa, Roberto, Optimum Inductive Methods. A Study in Inductive Probability, Bayesian Statistics, and Verisimilitude.
Johan Kwisthout, Todd Wareham & Iris van Rooij (2011). Bayesian Intractability Is Not an Ailment That Approximation Can Cure. Cognitive Science 35 (5):779-784.
John Earman (1993). Bayes, Hume, and Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 10 (3):293-310.
Karl J. Friston (2005). Hallucinations and Perceptual Inference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):764-766.
Added to index2012-02-22
Total downloads25 ( #49,656 of 549,196 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,790 of 549,196 )
How can I increase my downloads?