Brain Inspired

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Check out this story: What, if anything, makes mood fundamentally different from memory? Sign up for Brain Inspired email alerts to be notified every time a new Brain Inspired episode is released. To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. Elusive Cures: Why Neuroscience Hasn't Solved Brain Disorders―and How We Can Change That. Nicole Rust runs the Visual Memory laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania. Her interests have expanded now to include mood and feelings, as you'll hear. And she wrote this book, which contains a plethora of ideas about how we can pave a way forward in neuroscience to help treat mental and brain disorders. We talk about a small plethora of those ideas from her book. which also contains the story partially which will hear of her own journey in thinking about these things from working early on in visual neuroscience to where she is now. Nicole's website. Elusive Cures: Why Neuroscience Hasn't Solved Brain Disorders―and How We Can Change That. 0:00 - Intro 6:12 - Nicole's path 19:25 - The grand plan 25:18 - Robustness and fragility 39:15 - Mood 49:25 - Model everything! 56:26 - Epistemic iteration 1:06:50 - Can we standardize mood? 1:10:36 - Perspective neuroscience 1:20:12 - William Wimsatt 1:25:40 - Consciousness

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Check out this series of essays about representations: What are we talking about? Clarifying the fuzzy concept of representation in neuroscience and beyond Sign up for Brain Inspired email alerts to be notified every time a new Brain Inspired episode is released. To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. What do neuroscientists mean when they use the term representation? That's part of what Luis Favela and Edouard Machery set out to answer a couple years ago by surveying lots of folks in the cognitive sciences, and they concluded that as a field the term is used in a confused and unclear way. Confused and unclear are technical terms here, and Luis and Edouard explain what they mean in the episode. More recently Luis and Edouard wrote a follow-up piece arguing that maybe it's okay for everyone to use the term in slightly different ways, maybe it helps communication across disciplines, perhaps. My three other guests today, Frances Egan, Rosa Cao, and John Krakauer wrote responses to that argument, and on today's episode all those folks are here to further discuss that issue and why it matters. Luis is a part philosopher, part cognitive scientists at Indiana University Bloomington, Edouard is a philosopher and Director of the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh, Frances is a philosopher from Rutgers University, Rosa is a neuroscientist-turned philosopher at Stanford University, and John is a neuroscientist among other things, and co-runs the Brain, Learning, Animation, and Movement Lab at Johns Hopkins. Luis Favela. Favela's book: The Ecological Brain: Unifying the Sciences of Brain, Body, and Environment Edouard Machery. Machery's book: Doing without Concepts Frances Egan. Egan's book: Deflating Mental Representation. John Krakauer. Rosa Cao. Paper mentioned: Putting representations to use. The exchange, in order, discussed on this episode: Investigating the concept of representation in the neural and psychological sciences. The concept of representation in the brain sciences: The current status and ways forward. Commentaries: Assessing the landscape of representational concepts: Commentary on Favela and Machery. Comments on Favela and Machery's The concept of representation in the brain sciences: The current status and ways forward. Where did real representations go? Commentary on: The concept of representation in the brain sciences: The current status and ways forward by Favela and Machery. Reply to commentaries: Contextualizing, eliminating, or glossing: What to do with unclear scientific concepts like representation. 0:00 - Intro 3:55 - What is a representation to a neuroscientist? 14:44 - How to deal with the dilemma 21:20 - Opposing views 31:00 - What's at stake? 51:10 - Neural-only representation 1:01:11 - When "representation" is playing a useful role 1:12:56 - The role of a neuroscientist 1:39:35 - The purpose of "representational talk" 1:53:03 - Non-representational mental phenomenon 1:55:53 - Final thoughts

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Sign up for Brain Inspired email alerts to be notified every time a new Brain Inspired episode is released. To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. You may have heard of the critical brain hypothesis. It goes something like this: brain activity operates near a dynamical regime called criticality, poised at the sweet spot between too much order and too much chaos, and this is a good thing because systems at criticality are optimized for computing, they maximize information transfer, they maximize the time range over which they operate, and a handful of other good properties. John Beggs has been studying criticality in brains for over 20 years now. His 2003 paper with Deitmar Plenz is one of of the first if not the first to show networks of neurons operating near criticality, and it gets cited in almost every criticality paper I read. John runs the Beggs Lab at Indiana University Bloomington, and a few years ago he literally wrote the book on criticality, called The Cortex and the Critical Point: Understanding the Power of Emergence, which I highly recommend as an excellent introduction to the topic, and he continues to work on criticality these days. On this episode we discuss what criticality is, why and how brains might strive for it, the past and present of how to measure it and why there isn't a consensus on how to measure it, what it means that criticality appears in so many natural systems outside of brains yet we want to say it's a special property of brains. These days John spends plenty of effort defending the criticality hypothesis from critics, so we discuss that, and much more. Beggs Lab. Book: The Cortex and the Critical Point: Understanding the Power of Emergence Related papers Addressing skepticism of the critical brain hypothesis Papers John mentioned: Tetzlaff et al 2010: Self-organized criticality in developing neuronal networks. Haldeman and Beggs 2005: Critical Branching Captures Activity in Living Neural Networks and Maximizes the Number of Metastable States. Bertschinger et al 2004: At the edge of chaos: Real-time computations and self-organized criticality in recurrent neural networks. Legenstein and Maass 2007: Edge of chaos and prediction of computational performance for neural circuit models. Kinouchi and Copelli 2006: Optimal dynamical range of excitable networks at criticality. Chialvo 2010: Emergent complex neural dynamics.. Mora and Bialek 2011: Are Biological Systems Poised at Criticality? Read the transcript. 0:00 - Intro 4:28 - What is criticality? 10:19 - Why is criticality special in brains? 15:34 - Measuring criticality 24:28 - Dynamic range and criticality 28:28 - Criticisms of criticality 31:43 - Current state of critical brain hypothesis 33:34 - Causality and criticality 36:39 - Criticality as a homeostatic set point 38:49 - Is criticality necessary for life? 50:15 - Shooting for criticality far from thermodynamic equilibrium 52:45 - Quasi- and near-criticality 55:03 - Cortex vs. whole brain 58:50 - Structural criticality through development 1:01:09 - Criticality in AI 1:03:56 - Most pressing criticisms of criticality 1:10:08 - Gradients of criticality 1:22:30 - Homeostasis vs. criticality 1:29:57 - Minds and criticality

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Sign up for Brain Inspired email alerts to be notified every time a new Brain Inspired episode is released. To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. Rony Hirschhorn, Alex Lepauvre, and Oscar Ferrante are three of many many scientists that comprise the COGITATE group. COGITATE is an adversarial collaboration project to test theories of consciousness in humans, in this case testing the integrated information theory of consciousness and the global neuronal workspace theory of consciousness. I said it's an adversarial collaboration, so what does that mean. It's adversarial in that two theories of consciousness are being pitted against each other. It's a collaboration in that the proponents of the two theories had to agree on what experiments could be performed that could possibly falsify the claims of either theory. The group has just published the results of the first round of experiments in a paper titled Adversarial testing of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theories of consciousness, and this is what Rony, Alex, and Oscar discuss with me today. The short summary is that they used a simple task and measured brain activity with three different methods: EEG, MEG, and fMRI, and made predictions about where in the brain correlates of consciousness should be, how that activity should be maintained over time, and what kind of functional connectivity patterns should be present between brain regions. The take home is a mixed bag, with neither theory being fully falsified, but with a ton of data and results for the world to ponder and build on, to hopefully continue to refine and develop theoretical accounts of how brains and consciousness are related. So we discuss the project itself, many of the challenges they faced, their experiences and reflections working on it and on coming together as a team, the nature of working on an adversarial collaboration, when so much is at stake for the proponents of each theory, and, as you heard last episode with Dean Buonomano, when one of the theories, IIT, is surrounded by a bit of controversy itself regarding whether it should even be considered a scientific theory. COGITATE. Oscar Ferrante. @ferrante_oscar Rony Hirschhorn. @RonyHirsch Alex Lepauvre. @LepauvreAlex Paper: Adversarial testing of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theories of consciousness. BI 210 Dean Buonomano: Consciousness, Time, and Organotypic Dynamics 0:00 - Intro 4:00 - COGITATE 17:42 - How the experiments were developed 32:37 - How data was collected and analyzed 41:24 - Prediction 1: Where is consciousness? 47:51 - The experimental task 1:00:14 - Prediction 2: Duration of consciousness-related activity 1:18:37 - Prediction 3: Inter-areal communication 1:28:28 - Big picture of the results 1:44:25 - Moving forward

Dean Buonomano runs the Buonomano lab at UCLA. Dean was a guest on Brain Inspired way back on episode 18, where we talked about his book Your Brain is a Time Machine: The Neuroscience and Physics of Time, which details much of his thought and research about how centrally important time is for virtually everything we do, different conceptions of time in philosophy, and how how brains might tell time. That was almost 7 years ago, and his work on time and dynamics in computational neuroscience continues. One thing we discuss today, later in the episode, is his recent work using organotypic brain slices to test the idea that cortical circuits implement timing as a computational primitive it's something they do by they're very nature. Organotypic brain slices are between what I think of as traditional brain slices and full on organoids. Brain slices are extracted from an organism, and maintained in a brain-like fluid while you perform experiments on them. Organoids start with a small amount of cells that you the culture, and let them divide and grow and specialize, until you have a mass of cells that have grown into an organ of some sort, to then perform experiments on. Organotypic brain slices are extracted from an organism, like brain slices, but then also cultured for some time to let them settle back into some sort of near-homeostatic point - to them as close as you can to what they're like in the intact brain... then perform experiments on them. Dean and his colleagues use optigenetics to train their brain slices to predict the timing of the stimuli, and they find the populations of neurons do indeed learn to predict the timing of the stimuli, and that they exhibit replaying of those sequences similar to the replay seen in brain areas like the hippocampus. But, we begin our conversation talking about Dean's recent piece in The Transmitter, that I'll point to in the show notes, called The brain holds no exclusive rights on how to create intelligence. There he argues that modern AI is likely to continue its recent successes despite the ongoing divergence between AI and neuroscience. This is in contrast to what folks in NeuroAI believe. We then talk about his recent chapter with physicist Carlo Rovelli, titled Bridging the neuroscience and physics of time, in which Dean and Carlo examine where neuroscience and physics disagree and where they agree about the nature of time. Finally, we discuss Dean's thoughts on the integrated information theory of consciousness, or IIT. IIT has see a little controversy lately. Over 100 scientists, a large part of that group calling themselves IIT-Concerned, have expressed concern that IIT is actually unscientific. This has cause backlash and anti-backlash, and all sorts of fun expression from many interested people. Dean explains his own views about why he thinks IIT is not in the purview of science - namely that it doesn't play well with the existing ontology of what physics says about science. What I just said doesn't do justice to his arguments, which he articulates much better. Buonomano lab. Related papers The brain holds no exclusive rights on how to create intelligence. What makes a theory of consciousness unscientific? Ex vivo cortical circuits learn to predict and spontaneously replay temporal patterns. Bridging the neuroscience and physics of time. 0:00 - Intro 8:49 - AI doesn't need biology 17:52 - Time in physics and in neuroscience 34:04 - Integrated information theory 1:01:34 - Global neuronal workspace theory 1:07:46 - Organotypic slices and predictive processing 1:26:07 - Do brains actually measure time? David Robbe

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Sign up for the “Brain Inspired” email alerts to be notified every time a new “Brain Inspired” episode is released. To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. Aran Nayebi is an Assistant Professor at Carnegie Mellon University in the Machine Learning Department. He was there in the early days of using convolutional neural networks to explain how our brains perform object recognition, and since then he's a had a whirlwind trajectory through different AI architectures and algorithms and how they relate to biological architectures and algorithms, so we touch on some of what he has studied in that regard. But he also recently started his own lab, at CMU, and he has plans to integrate much of what he has learned to eventually develop autonomous agents that perform the tasks we want them to perform in similar at least ways that our brains perform them. So we discuss his ongoing plans to reverse-engineer our intelligence to build useful cognitive architectures of that sort. We also discuss Aran's suggestion that, at least in the NeuroAI world, the Turing test needs to be updated to include some measure of similarity of the internal representations used to achieve the various tasks the models perform. By internal representations, as we discuss, he means the population-level activity in the neural networks, not the mental representations philosophy of mind often refers to, or other philosophical notions of the term representation. Aran's Website. Twitter: @ayan_nayebi. Related papers Brain-model evaluations need the NeuroAI Turing Test. Barriers and pathways to human-AI alignment: a game-theoretic approach. 0:00 - Intro 5:24 - Background 20:46 - Building embodied agents 33:00 - Adaptability 49:25 - Marr's levels 54:12 - Sensorimotor loop and intrinsic goals 1:00:05 - NeuroAI Turing Test 1:18:18 - Representations 1:28:18 - How to know what to measure 1:32:56 - AI safety

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. Gabriele Scheler co-founded the Carl Correns Foundation for Mathematical Biology. Carl Correns was her great grandfather, one of the early pioneers in genetics. Gabriele is a computational neuroscientist, whose goal is to build models of cellular computation, and much of her focus is on neurons. We discuss her theoretical work building a new kind of single neuron model. She, like Dmitri Chklovskii a few episodes ago, believes we've been stuck with essentially the same family of models for a neuron for a long time, despite minor variations on those models. The model Gabriele is working on, for example, respects the computations going on not only externally, via spiking, which has been the only game in town forever, but also the computations going on within the cell itself. Gabriele is in line with previous guests like Randy Gallistel, David Glanzman, and Hessam Akhlaghpour, who argue that we need to pay attention to how neurons are computing various things internally and how that affects our cognition. Gabriele also believes the new neuron model she's developing will improve AI, drastically simplifying the models by providing them with smarter neurons, essentially. We also discuss the importance of neuromodulation, her interest in wanting to understand how we think via our internal verbal monologue, her lifelong interest in language in general, what she thinks about LLMs, why she decided to start her own foundation to fund her science, what that experience has been like so far. Gabriele has been working on these topics for many years, and as you'll hear in a moment, she was there when computational neuroscience was just starting to pop up in a few places, when it was a nascent field, unlike its current ubiquity in neuroscience. Gabriele's website. Carl Correns Foundation for Mathematical Biology. Neuro-AI spinoff Related papers Sketch of a novel approach to a neural model. Localist neural plasticity identified by mutual information. Related episodes BI 199 Hessam Akhlaghpour: Natural Universal Computation BI 172 David Glanzman: Memory All The Way Down BI 126 Randy Gallistel: Where Is the Engram? 0:00 - Intro 4:41 - Gabriele's early interests in verbal thinking 14:14 - What is thinking? 24:04 - Starting one's own foundation 58:18 - Building a new single neuron model 1:19:25 - The right level of abstraction 1:25:00 - How a new neuron would change AI

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Sign up for the “Brain Inspired” email alerts to be notified every time a new “Brain Inspired” episode is released. To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. The concept of a schema goes back at least to the philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 1700s, who use the term to refer to a kind of built-in mental framework to organize sensory experience. But it was the psychologist Frederic Bartlett in the 1930s who used the term schema in a psychological sense, to explain how our memories are organized and how new information gets integrated into our memory. Fast forward another 100 years to today, and we have a podcast episode with my guest today, Alison Preston, who runs the Preston Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. On this episode, we discuss her neuroscience research explaining how our brains might carry out the processing that fits with our modern conception of schemas, and how our brains do that in different ways as we develop from childhood to adulthood. I just said, "our modern conception of schemas," but like everything else, there isn't complete consensus among scientists exactly how to define schema. Ali has her own definition. She shares that, and how it differs from other conceptions commonly used. I like Ali's version and think it should be adopted, in part because it helps distinguish schemas from a related term, cognitive maps, which we've discussed aplenty on brain inspired, and can sometimes be used interchangeably with schemas. So we discuss how to think about schemas versus cognitive maps, versus concepts, versus semantic information, and so on. Last episode Ciara Greene discussed schemas and how they underlie our memories, and learning, and predictions, and how they can lead to inaccurate memories and predictions. Today Ali explains how circuits in the brain might adaptively underlie this process as we develop, and how to go about measuring it in the first place. Preston Lab Twitter: @preston_lab Related papers: Concept formation as a computational cognitive process. Schema, Inference, and Memory. Developmental differences in memory reactivation relate to encoding and inference in the human brain. Read the transcript. 0:00 - Intro 6:51 - Schemas 20:37 - Schemas and the developing brain 35:03 - Information theory, dimensionality, and detail 41:17 - Geometry of schemas 47:26 - Schemas and creativity 50:29 - Brain connection pruning with development 1:02:46 - Information in brains 1:09:20 - Schemas and development in AI

Here's the link to learn more and sign up: Complexity Group Email List.

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. Ciara Greene is Associate Professor in the University College Dublin School of Psychology. In this episode we discuss Ciara's book Memory Lane: The Perfectly Imperfect Ways We Remember, co-authored by her colleague Gillian Murphy. The book is all about how human episodic memory works and why it works the way it does. Contrary to our common assumption, a "good memory" isn't necessarily highly accurate - we don't store memories like files in a filing cabinet. Instead our memories evolved to help us function in the world. That means our memories are flexible, constantly changing, and that forgetting can be beneficial, for example. Regarding how our memories work, we discuss how memories are reconstructed each time we access them, and the role of schemas in organizing our episodic memories within the context of our previous experiences. Because our memories evolved for function and not accuracy, there's a wide range of flexibility in how we process and store memories. We're all susceptible to misinformation, all our memories are affected by our emotional states, and so on. Ciara's research explores many of the ways our memories are shaped by these various conditions, and how we should better understand our own and other's memories. Attention and Memory Lab Twitter: @ciaragreene01. Book: Memory Lane: The Perfectly Imperfect Ways We Remember Read the transcript. 0:00 - Intro 5:35 - The function of memory 6:41 - Reconstructive nature of memory 13:50 - Memory schemas, highly superior autobiographical memory 20:49 - Misremembering and flashbulb memories 27:52 - Forgetting and schemas 36:06 - What is a "good" memory? 39:35 - Memories and intention 43:47 - Memory and context 49:55 - Implanting false memories 1:04:10 - Memory suggestion during interrogations 1:06:30 - Memory, imagination, and creativity 1:13:45 - Artificial intelligence and memory 1:21:21 - Driven by questions

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Sign up for the “Brain Inspired” email alerts to be notified every time a new “Brain Inspired” episode is released: To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. Since the 1940s and 50s, back at the origins of what we now think of as artificial intelligence, there have been lots of ways of conceiving what it is that brains do, or what the function of the brain is. One of those conceptions, going to back to cybernetics, is that the brain is a controller that operates under the principles of feedback control. This view has been carried down in various forms to us in present day. Also since that same time period, when McCulloch and Pitts suggested that single neurons are logical devices, there have been lots of ways of conceiving what it is that single neurons do. Are they logical operators, do they each represent something special, are they trying to maximize efficiency, for example? Dmitri Chklovskii, who goes by Mitya, runs the Neural Circuits and Algorithms lab at the Flatiron Institute. Mitya believes that single neurons themselves are each individual controllers. They're smart agents, each trying to predict their inputs, like in predictive processing, but also functioning as an optimal feedback controller. We talk about historical conceptions of the function of single neurons and how this differs, we talk about how to think of single neurons versus populations of neurons, some of the neuroscience findings that seem to support Mitya's account, the control algorithm that simplifies the neuron's otherwise impossible control task, and other various topics. We also discuss Mitya's early interests, coming from a physics and engineering background, in how to wire up our brains efficiently, given the limited amount of space in our craniums. Obviously evolution produced its own solutions for this problem. This pursuit led Mitya to study the C. elegans worm, because its connectome was nearly complete- actually, Mitya and his team helped complete the connectome so he'd have the whole wiring diagram to study it. So we talk about that work, and what knowing the whole connectome of C. elegans has and has not taught us about how brains work. Chklovskii Lab. Twitter: @chklovskii. Related papers The Neuron as a Direct Data-Driven Controller. Normative and mechanistic model of an adaptive circuit for efficient encoding and feature extraction. Related episodes BI 143 Rodolphe Sepulchre: Mixed Feedback Control BI 119 Henry Yin: The Crisis in Neuroscience 0:00 - Intro 7:34 - Physicists approach for neuroscience 12:39 - What's missing in AI and neuroscience? 16:36 - Connectomes 31:51 - Understanding complex systems 33:17 - Earliest models of neurons 39:08 - Smart neurons 42:56 - Neuron theories that influenced Mitya 46:50 - Neuron as a controller 55:03 - How to test the neuron as controller hypothesis 1:00:29 - Direct data-driven control 1:11:09 - Experimental evidence 1:22:25 - Single neuron doctrine and population doctrine 1:25:30 - Neurons as agents 1:28:52 - Implications for AI 1:30:02 - Limits to control perspective

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Sign up for the “Brain Inspired” email alerts to be notified every time a new “Brain Inspired” episode is released: To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. When you play hide and seek, as you do on a regular basis I'm sure, and you count to ten before shouting, "Ready or not, here I come," how do you keep track of time? Is it a clock in your brain, as many neuroscientists assume and therefore search for in their research? Or is it something else? Maybe the rhythm of your vocalization as you say, "one-one thousand, two-one thousand"? Even if you're counting silently, could it be that you're imagining the movements of speaking aloud and tracking those virtual actions? My guest today, neuroscientist David Robbe, believes we don't rely on clocks in our brains, or measure time internally, or really that we measure time at all. Rather, our estimation of time emerges through our interactions with the world around us and/or the world within us as we behave. David is group leader of the Cortical-Basal Ganglia Circuits and Behavior Lab at the Institute of Mediterranean Neurobiology. His perspective on how organisms measure time is the result of his own behavioral experiments with rodents, and by revisiting one of his favorite philosophers, Henri Bergson. So in this episode, we discuss how all of this came about - how neuroscientists have long searched for brain activity that measures or keeps track of time in areas like the basal ganglia, which is the brain region David focuses on, how the rodents he studies behave in surprising ways when he asks them to estimate time intervals, and how Bergson introduce the world to the notion of durée, our lived experience and feeling of time. Cortical-Basal Ganglia Circuits and Behavior Lab. Twitter: @dav_robbe Related papers Lost in time: Relocating the perception of duration outside the brain. Running, Fast and Slow: The Dorsal Striatum Sets the Cost ofMovement During Foraging. 0:00 - Intro 3:59 - Why behavior is so important in itself 10:27 - Henri Bergson 21:17 - Bergson's view of life 26:25 - A task to test how animals time things 34:08 - Back to Bergson and duree 39:44 - Externalizing time 44:11 - Internal representation of time 1:03:38 - Cognition as internal movement 1:09:14 - Free will 1:15:27 - Implications for AI

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Sign up for the “Brain Inspired” email alerts to be notified every time a new “Brain Inspired” episode is released. David Krakauer is the president of the Santa Fe Institute, where their mission is officially "Searching for Order in the Complexity of Evolving Worlds." When I think of the Santa Fe institute, I think of complexity science, because that is the common thread across the many subjects people study at SFI, like societies, economies, brains, machines, and evolution. David has been on before, and I invited him back to discuss some of the topics in his new book The Complex World: An Introduction to the Fundamentals of Complexity Science. The book on the one hand serves as an introduction and a guide to a 4 volume collection of foundational papers in complexity science, which you'll David discuss in a moment. On the other hand, The Complex World became much more, discussing and connecting ideas across the history of complexity science. Where did complexity science come from? How does it fit among other scientific paradigms? How did the breakthroughs come about? Along the way, we discuss the four pillars of complexity science - entropy, evolution, dynamics, and computation, and how complexity scientists draw from these four areas to study what David calls "problem-solving matter." We discuss emergence, the role of time scales, and plenty more all with my own self-serving goal to learn and practice how to think like a complexity scientist to improve my own work on how brains do things. Hopefully our conversation, and David's book, help you do the same. David's website. David's SFI homepage. The book: The Complex World: An Introduction to the Fundamentals of Complexity Science. The 4-Volume Series: Foundational Papers in Complexity Science. Mentioned: Aeon article: Problem-solving matter. The information theory of individuality. Read the transcript. 0:00 - Intro 3:45 - Origins of The Complex World 20:10 - 4 pillars of complexity 36:27 - 40s to 70s in complexity 42:33 - How to proceed as a complexity scientist 54:32 - Broken symmetries 1:02:40 - Emergence 1:13:25 - Time scales and complexity 1:18:48 - Consensus and how ideas migrate 1:29:25 - Disciplinary matrix (Kuhn) 1:32:45 - Intelligence vs. life

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Sign up for the “Brain Inspired” email alerts to be notified every time a new Brain Inspired episode is released. Eli Sennesh is a postdoc at Vanderbilt University, one of my old stomping grounds, currently in the lab of Andre Bastos. Andre's lab focuses on understanding brain dynamics within cortical circuits, particularly how communication between brain areas is coordinated in perception, cognition, and behavior. So Eli is busy doing work along those lines, as you'll hear more about. But the original impetus for having him on his recently published proposal for how predictive coding might be implemented in brains. So in that sense, this episode builds on the last episode with Rajesh Rao, where we discussed Raj's "active predictive coding" account of predictive coding. As a super brief refresher, predictive coding is the proposal that the brain is constantly predicting what's about the happen, then stuff happens, and the brain uses the mismatch between its predictions and the actual stuff that's happening, to learn how to make better predictions moving forward. I refer you to the previous episode for more details. So Eli's account, along with his co-authors of course, which he calls "divide-and-conquer" predictive coding, uses a probabilistic approach in an attempt to account for how brains might implement predictive coding, and you'll learn more about that in our discussion. But we also talk quite a bit about the difference between practicing theoretical and experimental neuroscience, and Eli's experience moving into the experimental side from the theoretical side. Eli's website. Bastos lab. Twitter: @EliSennesh Related papers Divide-and-Conquer Predictive Coding: a Structured Bayesian Inference Algorithm. Related episode: BI 201 Rajesh Rao: Active Predictive Coding. 0:00 - Intro 3:59 - Eli's worldview 17:56 - NeuroAI is hard 24:38 - Prediction errors vs surprise 55:16 - Divide and conquer 1:13:24 - Challenges 1:18:44 - How to build AI 1:25:56 - Affect 1:31:55 - Abolish the value function

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. Today I'm in conversation with Rajesh Rao, a distinguished professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Washington, where he also co-directs the Center for Neurotechnology. Back in 1999, Raj and Dana Ballard published what became quite a famous paper, which proposed how predictive coding might be implemented in brains. What is predictive coding, you may be wondering? It's roughly the idea that your brain is constantly predicting incoming sensory signals, and it generates that prediction as a top-down signal that meets the bottom-up sensory signals. Then the brain computes a difference between the prediction and the actual sensory input, and that difference is sent back up to the "top" where the brain then updates its internal model to make better future predictions. So that was 25 years ago, and it was focused on how the brain handles sensory information. But Raj just recently published an update to the predictive coding framework, one that incorporates actions and perception, suggests how it might be implemented in the cortex - specifically which cortical layers do what - something he calls "Active predictive coding." So we discuss that new proposal, we also talk about his engineering work on brain-computer interface technologies, like BrainNet, which basically connects two brains together, and like neural co-processors, which use an artificial neural network as a prosthetic that can do things like enhance memories, optimize learning, and help restore brain function after strokes, for example. Finally, we discuss Raj's interest and work on deciphering an ancient Indian text, the mysterious Indus script. Raj's website. Related papers A sensory–motor theory of the neocortex. Brain co-processors: using AI to restore and augment brain function. Towards neural co-processors for the brain: combining decoding and encoding in brain–computer interfaces. BrainNet: A Multi-Person Brain-to-Brain Interface for Direct Collaboration Between Brains. Read the transcript. 0:00 - Intro 7:40 - Predictive coding origins 16:14 - Early appreciation of recurrence 17:08 - Prediction as a general theory of the brain 18:38 - Rao and Ballard 1999 26:32 - Prediction as a general theory of the brain 33:24 - Perception vs action 33:28 - Active predictive coding 45:04 - Evolving to augment our brains 53:03 - BrainNet 57:12 - Neural co-processors 1:11:19 - Decoding the Indus Script 1:20:18 - Transformer models relation to active predictive coding

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Joe Monaco and Grace Hwang co-organized a recent workshop I participated in, the 2024 BRAIN NeuroAI Workshop. You may have heard of the BRAIN Initiative, but in case not, BRAIN is is huge funding effort across many agencies, one of which is the National Institutes of Health, where this recent workshop was held. The BRAIN Initiative began in 2013 under the Obama administration, with the goal to support developing technologies to help understand the human brain, so we can cure brain based diseases. BRAIN Initiative just became a decade old, with many successes like recent whole brain connectomes, and discovering the vast array of cell types. Now the question is how to move forward, and one area they are curious about, that perhaps has a lot of potential to support their mission, is the recent convergence of neuroscience and AI... or NeuroAI. The workshop was designed to explore how NeuroAI might contribute moving forward, and to hear from NeuroAI folks how they envision the field moving forward. You'll hear more about that in a moment. That's one reason I invited Grace and Joe on. Another reason is because they co-wrote a position paper a while back that is impressive as a synthesis of lots of cognitive sciences concepts, but also proposes a specific level of abstraction and scale in brain processes that may serve as a base layer for computation. The paper is called Neurodynamical Computing at the Information Boundaries, of Intelligent Systems, and you'll learn more about that in this episode. Joe's NIH page. Grace's NIH page. Twitter: Related papers Neurodynamical Computing at the Information Boundaries of Intelligent Systems. Cognitive swarming in complex environments with attractor dynamics and oscillatory computing. Spatial synchronization codes from coupled rate-phase neurons. Oscillators that sync and swarm. Mentioned A historical survey of algorithms and hardware architectures for neural-inspired and neuromorphic computing applications. Recalling Lashley and reconsolidating Hebb. BRAIN NeuroAI Workshop (Nov 12–13) NIH BRAIN NeuroAI Workshop Program Book NIH VideoCast – Day 1 Recording – BRAIN NeuroAI Workshop NIH VideoCast – Day 2 Recording – BRAIN NeuroAI Workshop Neuromorphic Principles in Biomedicine and Healthcare Workshop (Oct 21–22) NPBH 2024 BRAIN Investigators Meeting 2020 Symposium & Perspective Paper BRAIN 2020 Symposium on Dynamical Systems Neuroscience and Machine Learning (YouTube) Neurodynamical Computing at the Information Boundaries of Intelligent Systems | Cognitive Computation NSF/CIRC Community Infrastructure for Research in Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CIRC) | NSF - National Science Foundation THOR Neuromorphic Commons - Matrix: The UTSA AI Consortium for Human Well-Being 0:00 - Intro 25:45 - NeuroAI Workshop - neuromorphics 33:31 - Neuromorphics and theory 49:19 - Reflections on the workshop 54:22 - Neurodynamical computing and information boundaries 1:01:04 - Perceptual control theory 1:08:56 - Digital twins and neural foundation models 1:14:02 - Base layer of computation

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership: https://www.thetransmitter.org/partners/ Sign up for the “Brain Inspired” email alerts to be notified every time a new “Brain Inspired” episode is released: https://www.thetransmitter.org/newsletters/ To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. Hessam Akhlaghpour is a postdoctoral researcher at Rockefeller University in the Maimon lab. His experimental work is in fly neuroscience mostly studying spatial memories in fruit flies. However, we are going to be talking about a different (although somewhat related) side of his postdoctoral research. This aspect of his work involves theoretical explorations of molecular computation, which are deeply inspired by Randy Gallistel and Adam King's book Memory and the Computational Brain. Randy has been on the podcast before to discuss his ideas that memory needs to be stored in something more stable than the synapses between neurons, and how that something could be genetic material like RNA. When Hessam read this book, he was re-inspired to think of the brain the way he used to think of it before experimental neuroscience challenged his views. It re-inspired him to think of the brain as a computational system. But it also led to what we discuss today, the idea that RNA has the capacity for universal computation, and Hessam's development of how that might happen. So we discuss that background and story, why universal computation has been discovered in organisms yet since surely evolution has stumbled upon it, and how RNA might and combinatory logic could implement universal computation in nature. Hessam's website. Maimon Lab. Twitter: @theHessam. Related papers An RNA-based theory of natural universal computation. The molecular memory code and synaptic plasticity: a synthesis. Lifelong persistence of nuclear RNAs in the mouse brain. Cris Moore's conjecture #5 in this 1998 paper. (The Gallistel book): Memory and the Computational Brain: Why Cognitive Science Will Transform Neuroscience. Related episodes BI 126 Randy Gallistel: Where Is the Engram? BI 172 David Glanzman: Memory All The Way Down Read the transcript. 0:00 - Intro 4:44 - Hessam's background 11:50 - Randy Gallistel's book 14:43 - Information in the brain 17:51 - Hessam's turn to universal computation 35:30 - AI and universal computation 40:09 - Universal computation to solve intelligence 44:22 - Connecting sub and super molecular 50:10 - Junk DNA 56:42 - Genetic material for coding 1:06:37 - RNA and combinatory logic 1:35:14 - Outlook 1:42:11 - Reflecting on the molecular world

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Sign up for the “Brain Inspired” email alerts to be notified every time a new “Brain Inspired” episode is released: https://www.thetransmitter.org/newsletters/ To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. Tony Zador runs the Zador lab at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. You've heard him on Brain Inspired a few times in the past, most recently in a panel discussion I moderated at this past COSYNE conference - a conference Tony co-founded 20 years ago. As you'll hear, Tony's current and past interests and research endeavors are of a wide variety, but today we focus mostly on his thoughts on NeuroAI. We're in a huge AI hype cycle right now, for good reason, and there's a lot of talk in the neuroscience world about whether neuroscience has anything of value to provide AI engineers - and how much value, if any, neuroscience has provided in the past. Tony is team neuroscience. You'll hear him discuss why in this episode, especially when it comes to ways in which development and evolution might inspire better data efficiency, looking to animals in general to understand how they coordinate numerous objective functions to achieve their intelligent behaviors - something Tony calls alignment - and using spikes in AI models to increase energy efficiency. Zador Lab Twitter: @TonyZador Previous episodes: BI 187: COSYNE 2024 Neuro-AI Panel. BI 125 Doris Tsao, Tony Zador, Blake Richards: NAISys BI 034 Tony Zador: How DNA and Evolution Can Inform AI Related papers Catalyzing next-generation Artificial Intelligence through NeuroAI. Encoding innate ability through a genomic bottleneck. Essays NeuroAI: A field born from the symbiosis between neuroscience, AI. What the brain can teach artificial neural networks. Read the transcript. 0:00 - Intro 3:28 - "Neuro-AI" 12:48 - Visual cognition history 18:24 - Information theory in neuroscience 20:47 - Necessary steps for progress 24:34 - Neuro-AI models and cognition 35:47 - Animals for inspiring AI 41:48 - What we want AI to do 46:01 - Development and AI 59:03 - Robots 1:25:10 - Catalyzing the next generation of AI

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Sign up for the “Brain Inspired” email alerts to be notified every time a new “Brain Inspired” episode is released. To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. Karen Adolph runs the Infant Action Lab at NYU, where she studies how our motor behaviors develop from infancy onward. We discuss how observing babies at different stages of development illuminates how movement and cognition develop in humans, how variability and embodiment are key to that development, and the importance of studying behavior in real-world settings as opposed to restricted laboratory settings. We also explore how these principles and simulations can inspire advances in intelligent robots. Karen has a long-standing interest in ecological psychology, and she shares some stories of her time studying under Eleanor Gibson and other mentors. Finally, we get a surprise visit from her partner Mark Blumberg, with whom she co-authored an opinion piece arguing that "motor cortex" doesn't start off with a motor function, oddly enough, but instead processes sensory information during the first period of animals' lives. Infant Action Lab (Karen Adolph's lab) Sleep and Behavioral Development Lab (Mark Blumberg's lab) Related papers Motor Development: Embodied, Embedded, Enculturated, and Enabling An Ecological Approach to Learning in (Not and) Development An update of the development of motor behavior Protracted development of motor cortex constrains rich interpretations of infant cognition

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. This is the second conversation I had while teamed up with Gaute Einevoll at a workshop on NeuroAI in Norway. In this episode, Gaute and I are joined by Cristina Savin and Tim Vogels. Cristina shares how her lab uses recurrent neural networks to study learning, while Tim talks about his long-standing research on synaptic plasticity and how AI tools are now helping to explore the vast space of possible plasticity rules. We touch on how deep learning has changed the landscape, enhancing our research but also creating challenges with the "fashion-driven" nature of science today. We also reflect on how these new tools have changed the way we think about brain function without fundamentally altering the structure of our questions. Be sure to check out Gaute's Theoretical Neuroscience podcast as well! Mikkel Lepperød Cristina Savin Tim Vogels Twitter: @TPVogels Gaute Einevoll Twitter: @GauteEinevoll Gaute's Theoretical Neuroscience podcast. Validating models: How would success in NeuroAI look like? Read the transcript, provided by The Transmitter.

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. This is the first of two less usual episodes. I was recently in Norway at a NeuroAI workshop called Validating models: How would success in NeuroAI look like? What follows are a few recordings I made with my friend Gaute Einevoll. Gaute has been on this podcast before, but more importantly he started his own podcast a while back called Theoretical Neuroscience, which you should check out. Gaute and I introduce the episode, then briefly speak with Mikkel Lepperød, one of the organizers of the workshop. In this first episode, we're then joined by Ken Harris and Andreas Tolias to discuss how AI has influenced their research, thoughts about brains and minds, and progress and productivity. Validating models: How would success in NeuroAI look like? Mikkel Lepperød Andreas Tolias Twitter: @AToliasLab Ken Harris Twitter: @kennethd_harris Gaute Einevoll Twitter: @GauteEinevoll Gaute's Theoretical Neuroscience podcast. Read the transcript, provided by The Transmitter.

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. https://youtu.be/lbKEOdbeqHo The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. The Transmitter has provided a transcript for this episode. Vijay Namoodiri runs the Nam Lab at the University of California San Francisco, and Ali Mojebi is an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Ali as been on the podcast before a few times, and he's interested in how neuromodulators like dopamine affect our cognition. And it was Ali who pointed me to Vijay, because of some recent work Vijay has done reassessing how dopamine might function differently than what has become the classic story of dopamine's function as it pertains to learning. The classic story is that dopamine is related to reward prediction errors. That is, dopamine is modulated when you expect reward and don't get it, and/or when you don't expect reward but do get it. Vijay calls this a "prospective" account of dopamine function, since it requires an animal to look into the future to expect a reward. Vijay has shown, however, that a retrospective account of dopamine might better explain lots of know behavioral data. This retrospective account links dopamine to how we understand causes and effects in our ongoing behavior. So in this episode, Vijay gives us a history lesson about dopamine, his newer story and why it has caused a bit of controversy, and how all of this came to be. I happened to be looking at the Transmitter the other day, after I recorded this episode, and low and behold, there was an article titles Reconstructing dopamine's link to reward. Vijay is featured in the article among a handful of other thoughtful researchers who share their work and ideas about this very topic. Vijay wrote his own piece as well: Dopamine and the need for alternative theories. So check out those articles for more views on how the field is reconsidering how dopamine works. Nam Lab. Mohebi & Associates (Ali's Lab). Twitter: @vijay_mkn @mohebial Transmitter Dopamine and the need for alternative theories. Reconstructing dopamine's link to reward. Related papers Mesolimbic dopamine release conveys causal associations. Mesostriatal dopamine is sensitive to changes in specific cue-reward contingencies. What is the state space of the world for real animals? The learning of prospective and retrospective cognitive maps within neural circuits Further reading (Ali's paper): Dopamine transients follow a striatal gradient of reward time horizons. Ali listed a bunch of work on local modulation of DA release: Local control of striatal dopamine release. Synaptic-like axo-axonal transmission from striatal cholinergic interneurons onto dopaminergic fibers. Spatial and temporal scales of dopamine transmission. Striatal dopamine neurotransmission: Regulation of release and uptake. Striatal Dopamine Release Is Triggered by Synchronized Activity in Cholinergic Interneurons. An action potential initiation mechanism in distal axons for the control of dopamine release. Read the transcript, produced by The Transmitter. 0:00 - Intro 3:42 - Dopamine: the history of theories 32:54 - Importance of learning and behavior studies 39:12 - Dopamine and causality 1:06:45 - Controversy over Vijay's findings

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Check out this story: Monkeys build mental maps to navigate new tasks Sign up for “Brain Inspired” email alerts to be notified every time a new “Brain Inspired” episode is released. To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. Kim Stachenfeld embodies the original core focus of this podcast, the exploration of the intersection between neuroscience and AI, now commonly known as Neuro-AI. That's because she walks both lines. Kim is a Senior Research Scientist at Google DeepMind, the AI company that sprang from neuroscience principles, and also does research at the Center for Theoretical Neuroscience at Columbia University. She's been using her expertise in modeling, and reinforcement learning, and cognitive maps, for example, to help understand brains and to help improve AI. I've been wanting to have her on for a long time to get her broad perspective on AI and neuroscience. We discuss the relative roles of industry and academia in pursuing various objectives related to understanding and building cognitive entities She's studied the hippocampus in her research on reinforcement learning and cognitive maps, so we discuss what the heck the hippocampus does since it seems to implicated in so many functions, and how she thinks of reinforcement learning these days. Most recently Kim at Deepmind has focused on more practical engineering questions, using deep learning models to predict things like chaotic turbulent flows, and even to help design things like bridges and airplanes. And we don't get into the specifics of that work, but, given that I just spoke with Damian Kelty-Stephen, who thinks of brains partially as turbulent cascades, Kim and I discuss how her work on modeling turbulence has shaped her thoughts about brains. Kim's website. Twitter: @neuro_kim. Related papers Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models. Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models. Learned simulators: Learned coarse models for efficient turbulence simulation. Physical design using differentiable learned simulators. Check out the transcript, provided by The Transmitter. 0:00 - Intro 4:31 - Deepmind's original and current vision 9:53 - AI as tools and models 12:53 - Has AI hindered neuroscience? 17:05 - Deepmind vs academic work balance 20:47 - Is industry better suited to understand brains? 24?42 - Trajectory of Deepmind 27:41 - Kim's trajectory 33:35 - Is the brain a ML entity? 36:12 - Hippocampus 44:12 - Reinforcement learning 51:32 - What does neuroscience need more and less of? 1:02:53 - Neuroscience in a weird place? 1:06:41 - How Kim's questions have changed 1:16:31 - Intelligence and LLMs 1:25:34 - Challenges

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Àlex Gómez-Marín heads The Behavior of Organisms Laboratory at the Institute of Neuroscience in Alicante, Spain. He's one of those theoretical physicist turned neuroscientist, and he has studied a wide range of topics over his career. Most recently, he has become interested in what he calls the "edges of consciousness", which encompasses the many trying to explain what may be happening when we have experiences outside our normal everyday experiences. For example, when we are under the influence of hallucinogens, when have near-death experiences (as Alex has), paranormal experiences, and so on. So we discuss what led up to his interests in these edges of consciousness, how he now thinks about consciousness and doing science in general, how important it is to make room for all possible explanations of phenomena, and to leave our metaphysics open all the while. Alex's website: The Behavior of Organisms Laboratory. Twitter: @behaviOrganisms. Previous episodes: BI 168 Frauke Sandig and Eric Black w Alex Gomez-Marin: AWARE: Glimpses of Consciousness. BI 136 Michel Bitbol and Alex Gomez-Marin: Phenomenology. Related: The Consciousness of Neuroscience. Seeing the consciousness forest for the trees. The stairway to transhumanist heaven. 0:00 - Intro 4:13 - Evolving viewpoints 10:05 - Near-death experience 18:30 - Mechanistic neuroscience vs. the rest 22:46 - Are you doing science? 33:46 - Where is my. mind? 44:55 - Productive vs. permissive brain 59:30 - Panpsychism 1:07:58 - Materialism 1:10:38 - How to choose what to do 1:16:54 - Fruit flies 1:19:52 - AI and the Singularity

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Damian Kelty-Stephen is an experimental psychologist at State University of New York at New Paltz. Last episode with Luis Favela, we discussed many of the ideas from ecological psychology, and how Louie is trying to reconcile those principles with those of neuroscience. In this episode, Damian and I in some ways continue that discussion, because Damian is also interested in unifying principles of ecological psychology and neuroscience. However, he is approaching it from a different perspective that Louie. What drew me originally to Damian was a paper he put together with a bunch of authors offering their own alternatives to the computer metaphor of the brain, which has come to dominate neuroscience. And we discuss that some, and I'll link to the paper in the show notes. But mostly we discuss Damian's work studying the fractal structure of our behaviors, connecting that structure across scales, and linking it to how our brains and bodies interact to produce our behaviors. Along the way, we talk about his interests in cascades dynamics and turbulence to also explain our intelligence and behaviors. So, I hope you enjoy this alternative slice into thinking about how we think and move in our bodies and in the world. Damian's website. Related papers In search for an alternative to the computer metaphor of the mind and brain. Multifractal emergent processes: Multiplicative interactions override nonlinear component properties. 0:00 - Intro 2:34 - Damian's background 9:02 - Brains 12:56 - Do neuroscientists have it all wrong? 16:56 - Fractals everywhere 28:01 - Fractality, causality, and cascades 32:01 - Cascade instability as a metaphor for the brain 40:43 - Damian's worldview 46:09 - What is AI missing? 54:26 - Turbulence 1:01:02 - Intelligence without fractals? Multifractality 1:10:28 - Ergodicity 1:19:16 - Fractality, intelligence, life 1:23:24 - What's exciting, changing viewpoints

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Luis Favela is an Associate Professor at Indiana University Bloomington. He is part philosopher, part cognitive scientist, part many things, and on this episode we discuss his new book, The Ecological Brain: Unifying the Sciences of Brain, Body, and Environment. In the book, Louie presents his NeuroEcological Nexus Theory, or NExT, which, as the subtitle says, proposes a way forward to tie together our brains, our bodies, and the environment; namely it has a lot to do with the complexity sciences and manifolds, which we discuss. But the book doesn't just present his theory. Among other things, it presents a rich historical look into why ecological psychology and neuroscience haven't been exactly friendly over the years, in terms of how to explain our behaviors, the role of brains in those explanations, how to think about what minds are, and so on. And it suggests how the two fields can get over their differences and be friends moving forward. And I'll just say, it's written in a very accessible manner, gently guiding the reader through many of the core concepts and science that have shaped ecological psychology and neuroscience, and for that reason alone I highly it. Ok, so we discuss a bunch of topics in the book, how Louie thinks, and Louie gives us some great background and historical lessons along the way. Luis' website. Book: The Ecological Brain: Unifying the Sciences of Brain, Body, and Environment 0:00 - Intro 7:05 - Louie's target with NEXT 20:37 - Ecological psychology and grid cells 22:06 - Why irreconcilable? 28:59 - Why hasn't ecological psychology evolved more? 47:13 - NExT 49:10 - Hypothesis 1 55:45 - Hypothesis 2 1:02:55 - Artificial intelligence and ecological psychology 1:16:33 - Manifolds 1:31:20 - Hypothesis 4: Body, low-D, Synergies 1:35:53 - Hypothesis 5: Mind emerges 1:36:23 - Hypothesis 6:

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Jovo, as you'll learn, is theoretically oriented, and enjoys the formalism of mathematics to approach questions that begin with a sense of wonder. So after I learn more about his overall approach, the first topic we discuss is the world's currently largest map of an entire brain... the connectome of an insect, the fruit fly. We talk about his role in this collaborative effort, what the heck a connectome is, why it's useful and what to do with it, and so on. The second main topic we discuss is his theoretical work on what his team has called prospective learning. Prospective learning differs in a fundamental way from the vast majority of AI these days, which they call retrospective learning. So we discuss what prospective learning is, and how it may improve AI moving forward. At some point there's a little audio/video sync issues crop up, so we switched to another recording method and fixed it... so just hang tight if you're viewing the podcast... it'll get better soon. 0:00 - Intro 05:25 - Jovo's approach 13:10 - Connectome of a fruit fly 26:39 - What to do with a connectome 37:04 - How important is a connectome? 51:48 - Prospective learning 1:15:20 - Efficiency 1:17:38 - AI doomerism

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Jolande Fooken is a post-postdoctoral researcher interested in how we move our eyes and move our hands together to accomplish naturalistic tasks. Hand-eye coordination is one of those things that sounds simple and we do it all the time to make meals for our children day in, and day out, and day in, and day out. But it becomes way less seemingly simple as soon as you learn how we make various kinds of eye movements, and how we make various kinds of hand movements, and use various strategies to do repeated tasks. And like everything in the brain sciences, it's something we don't have a perfect story for yet. So, Jolande and I discuss her work, and thoughts, and ideas around those and related topics. Jolande's website. Twitter: @ookenfooken. Related papers I am a parent. I am a scientist. Eye movement accuracy determines natural interception strategies. Perceptual-cognitive integration for goal-directed action in naturalistic environments. 0:00 - Intro 3:27 - Eye movements 8:53 - Hand-eye coordination 9:30 - Hand-eye coordination and naturalistic tasks 26:45 - Levels of expertise 34:02 - Yarbus and eye movements 42:13 - Varieties of experimental paradigms, varieties of viewing the brain 52:46 - Career vision 1:04:07 - Evolving view about the brain 1:10:49 - Coordination, robots, and AI

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Recently I was invited to moderate a panel at the annual Computational and Systems Neuroscience, or COSYNE, conference. This year was the 20th anniversary of COSYNE, and we were in Lisbon Porturgal. The panel goal was to discuss the relationship between neuroscience and AI. The panelists were Tony Zador, Alex Pouget, Blaise Aguera y Arcas, Kim Stachenfeld, Jonathan Pillow, and Eva Dyer. And I'll let them introduce themselves soon. Two of the panelists, Tony and Alex, co-founded COSYNE those 20 years ago, and they continue to have different views about the neuro-AI relationship. Tony has been on the podcast before and will return soon, and I'll also have Kim Stachenfeld on in a couple episodes. I think this was a fun discussion, and I hope you enjoy it. There's plenty of back and forth, a wide range of opinions, and some criticism from one of the audience questioners. This is an edited audio version, to remove long dead space and such. There's about 30 minutes of just panel, then the panel starts fielding questions from the audience. COSYNE.

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Mazviita Chirimuuta is a philosopher at the University of Edinburgh. Today we discuss topics from her new book, The Brain Abstracted: Simplification in the History and Philosophy of Neuroscience. She largely argues that when we try to understand something complex, like the brain, using models, and math, and analogies, for example - we should keep in mind these are all ways of simplifying and abstracting away details to give us something we actually can understand. And, when we do science, every tool we use and perspective we bring, every way we try to attack a problem, these are all both necessary to do the science and limit the interpretation we can claim from our results. She does all this and more by exploring many topics in neuroscience and philosophy throughout the book, many of which we discuss today. Mazviita's University of Edinburgh page. The Brain Abstracted: Simplification in the History and Philosophy of Neuroscience. Previous Brain Inspired episodes: BI 072 Mazviita Chirimuuta: Understanding, Prediction, and Reality BI 114 Mark Sprevak and Mazviita Chirimuuta: Computation and the Mind 0:00 - Intro 5:28 - Neuroscience to philosophy 13:39 - Big themes of the book 27:44 - Simplifying by mathematics 32:19 - Simplifying by reduction 42:55 - Simplification by analogy 46:33 - Technology precedes science 55:04 - Theory, technology, and understanding 58:04 - Cross-disciplinary progress 58:45 - Complex vs. simple(r) systems 1:08:07 - Is science bound to study stability? 1:13:20 - 4E for philosophy but not neuroscience? 1:28:50 - ANNs as models 1:38:38 - Study of mind

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. As some of you know, I recently got back into the research world, and in particular I work in Eric Yttris' lab at Carnegie Mellon University. Eric's lab studies the relationship between various kinds of behaviors and the neural activity in a few areas known to be involved in enacting and shaping those behaviors, namely the motor cortex and basal ganglia. And study that, he uses tools like optogentics, neuronal recordings, and stimulations, while mice perform certain tasks, or, in my case, while they freely behave wandering around an enclosed space. We talk about how Eric got here, how and why the motor cortex and basal ganglia are still mysteries despite lots of theories and experimental work, Eric's work on trying to solve those mysteries using both trained tasks and more naturalistic behavior. We talk about the valid question, "What is a behavior?", and lots more. Yttri Lab Twitter: @YttriLab Related papers Opponent and bidirectional control of movement velocity in the basal ganglia. B-SOiD, an open-source unsupervised algorithm for identification and fast prediction of behaviors. 0:00 - Intro 2:36 - Eric's background 14:47 - Different animal models 17:59 - ANNs as models for animal brains 24:34 - Main question 25:43 - How circuits produce appropriate behaviors 26:10 - Cerebellum 27:49 - What do motor cortex and basal ganglia do? 49:12 - Neuroethology 1:06:09 - What is a behavior? 1:11:18 - Categorize behavior (B-SOiD) 1:22:01 - Real behavior vs. ANNs 1:33:09 - Best era in neuroscience

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Peter Stratton is a research scientist at Queensland University of Technology. I was pointed toward Pete by a patreon supporter, who sent me a sort of perspective piece Pete wrote that is the main focus of our conversation, although we also talk about some of his work in particular - for example, he works with spiking neural networks, like my last guest, Dan Goodman. What Pete argues for is what he calls a sideways-in approach. So a bottom-up approach is to build things like we find them in the brain, put them together, and voila, we'll get cognition. A top-down approach, the current approach in AI, is to train a system to perform a task, give it some algorithms to run, and fiddle with the architecture and lower level details until you pass your favorite benchmark test. Pete is focused more on the principles of computation brains employ that current AI doesn't. If you're familiar with David Marr, this is akin to his so-called "algorithmic level", but it's between that and the "implementation level", I'd say. Because Pete is focused on the synthesis of different kinds of brain operations - how they intermingle to perform computations and produce emergent properties. So he thinks more like a systems neuroscientist in that respect. Figuring that out is figuring out how to make better AI, Pete says. So we discuss a handful of those principles, all through the lens of how challenging a task it is to synthesize multiple principles into a coherent functioning whole (as opposed to a collection of parts). Buy, hey, evolution did it, so I'm sure we can, too, right? Peter's website. Related papers Convolutionary, Evolutionary, and Revolutionary: What's Next for Brains, Bodies, and AI? Making a Spiking Net Work: Robust brain-like unsupervised machine learning. Global segregation of cortical activity and metastable dynamics. Unlocking neural complexity with a robotic key 0:00 - Intro 3:50 - AI background, neuroscience principles 8:00 - Overall view of modern AI 14:14 - Moravec's paradox and robotics 20:50 -Understanding movement to understand cognition 30:01 - How close are we to understanding brains/minds? 32:17 - Pete's goal 34:43 - Principles from neuroscience to build AI 42:39 - Levels of abstraction and implementation 49:57 - Mental disorders and robustness 55:58 - Function vs. implementation 1:04:04 - Spiking networks 1:07:57 - The roadmap 1:19:10 - AGI 1:23:48 - The terms AGI and AI 1:26:12 - Consciousness

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. You may know my guest as the co-founder of Neuromatch, the excellent online computational neuroscience academy, or as the creator of the Brian spiking neural network simulator, which is freely available. I know him as a spiking neural network practitioner extraordinaire. Dan Goodman runs the Neural Reckoning Group at Imperial College London, where they use spiking neural networks to figure out how biological and artificial brains reckon, or compute. All of the current AI we use to do all the impressive things we do, essentially all of it, is built on artificial neural networks. Notice the word "neural" there. That word is meant to communicate that these artificial networks do stuff the way our brains do stuff. And indeed, if you take a few steps back, spin around 10 times, take a few shots of whiskey, and squint hard enough, there is a passing resemblance. One thing you'll probably still notice, in your drunken stupor, is that, among the thousand ways ANNs differ from brains, is that they don't use action potentials, or spikes. From the perspective of neuroscience, that can seem mighty curious. Because, for decades now, neuroscience has focused on spikes as the things that make our cognition tick. We count them and compare them in different conditions, and generally put a lot of stock in their usefulness in brains. So what does it mean that modern neural networks disregard spiking altogether? Maybe spiking really isn't important to process and transmit information as well as our brains do. Or maybe spiking is one among many ways for intelligent systems to function well. Dan shares some of what he's learned and how he thinks about spiking and SNNs and a host of other topics. Neural Reckoning Group. Twitter: @neuralreckoning. Related papers Neural heterogeneity promotes robust learning. Dynamics of specialization in neural modules under resource constraints. Multimodal units fuse-then-accumulate evidence across channels. Visualizing a joint future of neuroscience and neuromorphic engineering. 0:00 - Intro 3:47 - Why spiking neural networks, and a mathematical background 13:16 - Efficiency 17:36 - Machine learning for neuroscience 19:38 - Why not jump ship from SNNs? 23:35 - Hard and easy tasks 29:20 - How brains and nets learn 32:50 - Exploratory vs. theory-driven science 37:32 - Static vs. dynamic 39:06 - Heterogeneity 46:01 - Unifying principles vs. a hodgepodge 50:37 - Sparsity 58:05 - Specialization and modularity 1:00:51 - Naturalistic experiments 1:03:41 - Projects for SNN research 1:05:09 - The right level of abstraction 1:07:58 - Obstacles to progress 1:12:30 - Levels of explanation 1:14:51 - What has AI taught neuroscience? 1:22:06 - How has neuroscience helped AI?

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience John Krakauer has been on the podcast multiple times (see links below). Today we discuss some topics framed around what he's been working on and thinking about lately. Things like Whether brains actually reorganize after damage The role of brain plasticity in general The path toward and the path not toward understanding higher cognition How to fix motor problems after strokes AGI Functionalism, consciousness, and much more. Relevant links: John's Lab. Twitter: @blamlab Related papers What are we talking about? Clarifying the fuzzy concept of representation in neuroscience and beyond. Against cortical reorganisation. Other episodes with John: BI 025 John Krakauer: Understanding Cognition BI 077 David and John Krakauer: Part 1 BI 078 David and John Krakauer: Part 2 BI 113 David Barack and John Krakauer: Two Views On Cognition Time stamps 0:00 - Intro 2:07 - It's a podcast episode! 6:47 - Stroke and Sherrington neuroscience 19:26 - Thinking vs. moving, representations 34:15 - What's special about humans? 56:35 - Does cortical reorganization happen? 1:14:08 - Current era in neuroscience

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience By day, Max Bennett is an entrepreneur. He has cofounded and CEO'd multiple AI and technology companies. By many other countless hours, he has studied brain related sciences. Those long hours of research have payed off in the form of this book, A Brief History of Intelligence: Evolution, AI, and the Five Breakthroughs That Made Our Brains. Three lines of research formed the basis for how Max synthesized knowledge into the ideas in his current book: findings from comparative psychology (comparing brains and minds of different species), evolutionary neuroscience (how brains have evolved), and artificial intelligence, especially the algorithms developed to carry out functions. We go through I think all five of the breakthroughs in some capacity. A recurring theme is that each breakthrough may explain multiple new abilities. For example, the evolution of the neocortex may have endowed early mammals with the ability to simulate or imagine what isn't immediately present, and this ability might further explain mammals' capacity to engage in vicarious trial and error (imagining possible actions before trying them out), the capacity to engage in counterfactual learning (what would have happened if things went differently than they did), and the capacity for episodic memory and imagination. The book is filled with unifying accounts like that, and it makes for a great read. Strap in, because Max gives a sort of masterclass about many of the ideas in his book. Twitter: @maxsbennett Book: A Brief History of Intelligence: Evolution, AI, and the Five Breakthroughs That Made Our Brains. 0:00 - Intro 5:26 - Why evolution is important 7:22 - Maclean's triune brain 14:59 - Breakthrough 1: Steering 29:06 - Fish intelligence 40:38 - Breakthrough 3: Mentalizing 52:44 - How could we improve the human brain? 1:00:44 - What is intelligence? 1:13:50 - Breakthrough 5: Speaking

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Welcome to another special panel discussion episode. I was recently invited to moderate at discussion amongst 6 people at the annual Aspirational Neuroscience meetup. Aspirational Neuroscience is a nonprofit community run by Kenneth Hayworth. Ken has been on the podcast before on episode 103. Ken helps me introduce the meetup and panel discussion for a few minutes. The goal in general was to discuss how current and developing neuroscience technologies might be used to decode a nontrivial memory from a static connectome - what the obstacles are, how to surmount those obstacles, and so on. There isn't video of the event, just audio, and because we were all sharing microphones and they were being passed around, you'll hear some microphone type noise along the way - but I did my best to optimize the audio quality, and it turned out mostly quite listenable I believe. Aspirational Neuroscience Panelists: Anton Arkhipov, Allen Institute for Brain Science. @AntonSArkhipov Konrad Kording, University of Pennsylvania. @KordingLab Tomás Ryan, Trinity College Dublin. @TJRyan_77 Srinivas Turaga, Janelia Research Campus. Dong Song, University of Southern California. @dongsong Zhihao Zheng, Princeton University. @zhihaozheng 0:00 - Intro 1:45 - Ken Hayworth 14:09 - Panel Discussion

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience Laura Gradowski is a philosopher of science at the University of Pittsburgh. Pluralism is roughly the idea that there is no unified account of any scientific field, that we should be tolerant of and welcome a variety of theoretical and conceptual frameworks, and methods, and goals, when doing science. Pluralism is kind of a buzz word right now in my little neuroscience world, but it's an old and well-trodden notion... many philosophers have been calling for pluralism for many years. But how pluralistic should we be in our studies and explanations in science? Laura suggests we should be very, very pluralistic, and to make her case, she cites examples in the history of science of theories and theorists that were once considered "fringe" but went on to become mainstream accepted theoretical frameworks. I thought it would be fun to have her on to share her ideas about fringe theories, mainstream theories, pluralism, etc. We discuss a wide range of topics, but also discuss some specific to the brain and mind sciences. Laura goes through an example of something and someone going from fringe to mainstream - the Garcia effect, named after John Garcia, whose findings went agains the grain of behaviorism, the dominant dogma of the day in psychology. But this overturning only happened after Garcia had to endure a long scientific hell of his results being ignored and shunned. So, there are multiple examples like that, and we discuss a handful. This has led Laura to the conclusion we should accept almost all theoretical frameworks, We discuss her ideas about how to implement this, where to draw the line, and much more. Laura's page at the Center for the Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh. Facing the Fringe. Garcia's reflections on his troubles: Tilting at the Paper Mills of Academe 0:00 - Intro 3:57 - What is fringe? 10:14 - What makes a theory fringe? 14:31 - Fringe to mainstream 17:23 - Garcia effect 28:17 - Fringe to mainstream: other examples 32:38 - Fringe and consciousness 33:19 - Words meanings change over time 40:24 - Pseudoscience 43:25 - How fringe becomes mainstream 47:19 - More fringe characteristics 50:06 - Pluralism as a solution 54:02 - Progress 1:01:39 - Encyclopedia of theories 1:09:20 - When to reject a theory 1:20:07 - How fringe becomes fringe 1:22:50 - Marginilization 1:27:53 - Recipe for fringe theorist

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience Eric Shea-Brown is a theoretical neuroscientist and principle investigator of the working group on neural dynamics at the University of Washington. In this episode, we talk a lot about dynamics and dimensionality in neural networks... how to think about them, why they matter, how Eric's perspectives have changed through his career. We discuss a handful of his specific research findings about dynamics and dimensionality, like how dimensionality changes when one is performing a task versus when you're just sort of going about your day, what we can say about dynamics just by looking at different structural connection motifs, how different modes of learning can rely on different dimensionalities, and more.We also talk about how he goes about choosing what to work on and how to work on it. You'll hear in our discussion how much credit Eric gives to those surrounding him and those who came before him - he drops tons of references and names, so get ready if you want to follow up on some of the many lines of research he mentions. Eric's website. Related papers Predictive learning as a network mechanism for extracting low-dimensional latent space representations. A scale-dependent measure of system dimensionality. From lazy to rich to exclusive task representations in neural networks and neural codes. Feedback through graph motifs relates structure and function in complex networks. 0:00 - Intro 4:15 - Reflecting on the rise of dynamical systems in neuroscience 11:15 - DST view on macro scale 15:56 - Intuitions 22:07 - Eric's approach 31:13 - Are brains more or less impressive to you now? 38:45 - Why is dimensionality important? 50:03 - High-D in Low-D 54:14 - Dynamical motifs 1:14:56 - Theory for its own sake 1:18:43 - Rich vs. lazy learning 1:22:58 - Latent variables 1:26:58 - What assumptions give you most pause?

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. I was recently invited to moderate a panel at the Annual Bernstein conference - this one was in Berlin Germany. The panel I moderated was at a satellite workshop at the conference called How can machine learning be used to generate insights and theories in neuroscience? Below are the panelists. I hope you enjoy the discussion! Program: How can machine learning be used to generate insights and theories in neuroscience? Panelists: Katrin Franke Lab website. Twitter: @kfrankelab. Ralf Haefner Haefner lab. Twitter: @haefnerlab. Martin Hebart Hebart Lab. Twitter: @martin_hebart. Johannes Jaeger Yogi's website. Twitter: @yoginho. Fred Wolf Fred's university webpage. Organizers: Alexander Ecker | University of Göttingen, Germany Fabian Sinz | University of Göttingen, Germany Mohammad Bashiri, Pavithra Elumalai, Michaela Vystrcilová | University of Göttingen, Germany

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. David runs his lab at NYU, where they stud`y auditory cognition, speech perception, language, and music. On the heels of the episode with David Glanzman, we discuss the ongoing mystery regarding how memory works, how to study and think about brains and minds, and the reemergence (perhaps) of the language of thought hypothesis. David has been on the podcast a few times... once by himself, and again with Gyorgy Buzsaki. Poeppel lab Twitter: @davidpoeppel. Related papers We don't know how the brain stores anything, let alone words. Memory in humans and deep language models: Linking hypotheses for model augmentation. The neural ingredients for a language of thought are available. 0:00 - Intro 11:17 - Across levels 14:598 - Nature of memory 24:12 - Using the right tools for the right question 35:46 - LLMs, what they need, how they've shaped David's thoughts 44:55 - Across levels 54:07 - Speed of progress 1:02:21 - Neuroethology and mental illness - patreon 1:24:42 - Language of Thought

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience Kevin Mitchell is professor of genetics at Trinity College Dublin. He's been on the podcast before, and we talked a little about his previous book, Innate – How the Wiring of Our Brains Shapes Who We Are. He's back today to discuss his new book Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will. The book is written very well and guides the reader through a wide range of scientific knowledge and reasoning that undergirds Kevin's main take home: our free will comes from the fact that we are biological organisms, biological organisms have agency, and as that agency evolved to become more complex and layered, so does our ability to exert free will. We touch on a handful of topics in the book, like the idea of agency, how it came about at the origin of life, and how the complexity of kinds of agency, the richness of our agency, evolved as organisms became more complex. We also discuss Kevin's reliance on the indeterminacy of the universe to tell his story, the underlying randomness at fundamental levels of physics. Although indeterminacy isn't necessary for ongoing free will, it is responsible for the capacity for free will to exist in the first place. We discuss the brain's ability to harness its own randomness when needed, creativity, whether and how it's possible to create something new, artificial free will, and lots more. Kevin's website. Twitter: @WiringtheBrain Book: Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will 4:27 - From Innate to Free Agents 9:14 - Thinking of the whole organism 15:11 - Who the book is for 19:49 - What bothers Kevin 27:00 - Indeterminacy 30:08 - How it all began 33:08 - How indeterminacy helps 43:58 - Libet's free will experiments 50:36 - Creativity 59:16 - Selves, subjective experience, agency, and free will 1:10:04 - Levels of agency and free will 1:20:38 - How much free will can we have? 1:28:03 - Hierarchy of mind constraints 1:36:39 - Artificial agents and free will 1:42:57 - Next book?

Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Alicia Juarrero is a philosopher and has been interested in complexity since before it was cool. In this episode, we discuss many of the topics and ideas in her new book, Context Changes Everything: How Constraints Create Coherence, which makes the thorough case that constraints should be given way more attention when trying to understand complex systems like brains and minds - how they're organized, how they operate, how they're formed and maintained, and so on. Modern science, thanks in large part to the success of physics, focuses on a single kind of causation - the kind involved when one billiard ball strikes another billiard ball. But that kind of causation neglects what Alicia argues are the most important features of complex systems the constraints that shape the dynamics and possibility spaces of systems. Much of Alicia's book describes the wide range of types of constraints we should be paying attention to, and how they interact and mutually influence each other. I highly recommend the book, and you may want to read it before, during, and after our conversation. That's partly because, if you're like me, the concepts she discusses still aren't comfortable to think about the way we're used to thinking about how things interact. Thinking across levels of organization turns out to be hard. You might also want her book handy because, hang on to your hats, we jump around a lot among those concepts. Context Changes everything comes about 25 years after her previous classic, Dynamics In Action, which we also discuss and which I also recommend if you want more of a primer to her newer more expansive work. Alicia's work touches on all things complex, from self-organizing systems like whirlpools, to ecologies, businesses, societies, and of course minds and brains. Book: Context Changes Everything: How Constraints Create Coherence 0:00 - Intro 3:37 - 25 years thinking about constraints 8:45 - Dynamics in Action and eliminativism 13:08 - Efficient and other kinds of causation 19:04 - Complexity via context independent and dependent constraints 25:53 - Enabling and limiting constraints 30:55 - Across scales 36:32 - Temporal constraints 42:58 - A constraint cookbook? 52:12 - Constraints in a mechanistic worldview 53:42 - How to explain using constraints 56:22 - Concepts and multiple realizabillity 59:00 - Kevin Mitchell question 1:08:07 - Mac Shine Question 1:19:07 - 4E 1:21:38 - Dimensionality across levels 1:27:26 - AI and constraints 1:33:08 - AI and life

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. In the intro, I mention the Bernstein conference workshop I'll participate in, called How can machine learning be used to generate insights and theories in neuroscience?. Follow that link to learn more, and register for the conference here. Hope to see you there in late September in Berlin! Justin Wood runs the Wood Lab at Indiana University, and his lab's tagline is "building newborn minds in virtual worlds." In this episode, we discuss his work comparing the visual cognition of newborn chicks and AI models. He uses a controlled-rearing technique with natural chicks, whereby the chicks are raised from birth in completely controlled visual environments. That way, Justin can present designed visual stimuli to test what kinds of visual abilities chicks have or can immediately learn. Then he can building models and AI agents that are trained on the same data as the newborn chicks. The goal is to use the models to better understand natural visual intelligence, and use what we know about natural visual intelligence to help build systems that better emulate biological organisms. We discuss some of the visual abilities of the chicks and what he's found using convolutional neural networks. Beyond vision, we discuss his work studying the development of collective behavior, which compares chicks to a model that uses CNNs, reinforcement learning, and an intrinsic curiosity reward function. All of this informs the age-old nature (nativist) vs. nurture (empiricist) debates, which Justin believes should give way to embrace both nature and nurture. Wood lab. Related papers: Controlled-rearing studies of newborn chicks and deep neural networks. Development of collective behavior in newborn artificial agents. A newborn embodied Turing test for view-invariant object recognition. Justin mentions these papers: Untangling invariant object recognition (Dicarlo & Cox 2007) 0:00 - Intro 5:39 - Origins of Justin's current research 11:17 - Controlled rearing approach 21:52 - Comparing newborns and AI models 24:11 - Nativism vs. empiricism 28:15 - CNNs and early visual cognition 29:35 - Smoothness and slowness 50:05 - Early biological development 53:27 - Naturalistic vs. highly controlled 56:30 - Collective behavior in animals and machines 1:02:34 - Curiosity and critical periods 1:09:05 - Controlled rearing vs. other developmental studies 1:13:25 - Breaking natural rules 1:16:33 - Deep RL collective behavior 1:23:16 - Bottom-up and top-down

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. David runs his lab at UCLA where he's also a distinguished professor. David used to believe what is currently the mainstream view, that our memories are stored in our synapses, those connections between our neurons. So as we learn, the synaptic connections strengthen and weaken until their just right, and that serves to preserve the memory. That's been the dominant view in neuroscience for decades, and is the fundamental principle that underlies basically all of deep learning in AI. But because of his own and others experiments, which he describes in this episode, David has come to the conclusion that memory must be stored not at the synapse, but in the nucleus of neurons, likely by some epigenetic mechanism mediated by RNA molecules. If this sounds familiar, I had Randy Gallistel on the the podcast on episode 126 to discuss similar ideas, and David discusses where he and Randy differ in their thoughts. This episode starts out pretty technical as David describes the series of experiments that changed his mind, but after that we broaden our discussion to a lot of the surrounding issues regarding whether and if his story about memory is true. And we discuss meta-issues like how old discarded ideas in science often find their way back, what it's like studying non-mainstream topic, including challenges trying to get funded for it, and so on. David's Faculty Page. Related papers The central importance of nuclear mechanisms in the storage of memory. David mentions Arc and virus-like transmission: The Neuronal Gene Arc Encodes a Repurposed Retrotransposon Gag Protein that Mediates Intercellular RNA Transfer. Structure of an Arc-ane virus-like capsid. David mentions many of the ideas from the Pushing the Boundaries: Neuroscience, Cognition, and Life Symposium. Related episodes: BI 126 Randy Gallistel: Where Is the Engram? BI 127 Tomás Ryan: Memory, Instinct, and Forgetting

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience My guest is Michael C. Frank, better known as Mike Frank, who runs the Language and Cognition lab at Stanford. Mike's main interests center on how children learn language - in particular he focuses a lot on early word learning, and what that tells us about our other cognitive functions, like concept formation and social cognition. We discuss that, his love for developing open data sets that anyone can use, The dance he dances between bottom-up data-driven approaches in this big data era, traditional experimental approaches, and top-down theory-driven approaches How early language learning in children differs from LLM learning Mike's rational speech act model of language use, which considers the intentions or pragmatics of speakers and listeners in dialogue. Language & Cognition Lab Twitter: @mcxfrank. I mentioned Mike's tweet thread about saying LLMs "have" cognitive functions: Related papers: Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference. Toward a “Standard Model” of Early Language Learning. The pervasive role of pragmatics in early language. The Structure of Developmental Variation in Early Childhood. Relational reasoning and generalization using non-symbolic neural networks. Unsupervised neural network models of the ventral visual stream.

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience In this episode I have a casual chat with Ali Mohebi about his new faculty position and his plans for the future. Ali's website. Twitter: @mohebial

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience My guest today is Andrea Martin, who is the Research Group Leader in the department of Language and Computation in Neural Systems at the Max Plank Institute and the Donders Institute. Andrea is deeply interested in understanding how our biological brains process and represent language. To this end, she is developing a theoretical model of language. The aim of the model is to account for the properties of language, like its structure, its compositionality, its infinite expressibility, while adhering to physiological data we can measure from human brains. Her theoretical model of language, among other things, brings in the idea of low-dimensional manifolds and neural dynamics along those manifolds. We've discussed manifolds a lot on the podcast, but they are a kind of abstract structure in the space of possible neural population activity - the neural dynamics. And that manifold structure defines the range of possible trajectories, or pathways, the neural dynamics can take over time. One of Andrea's ideas is that manifolds might be a way for the brain to combine two properties of how we learn and use language. One of those properties is the statistical regularities found in language - a given word, for example, occurs more often near some words and less often near some other words. This statistical approach is the foundation of how large language models are trained. The other property is the more formal structure of language: how it's arranged and organized in such a way that gives it meaning to us. Perhaps these two properties of language can come together as a single trajectory along a neural manifold. But she has lots of ideas, and we discuss many of them. And of course we discuss large language models, and how Andrea thinks of them with respect to biological cognition. We talk about modeling in general and what models do and don't tell us, and much more. Andrea's website. Twitter: @andrea_e_martin. Related papers A Compositional Neural Architecture for Language An oscillating computational model can track pseudo-rhythmic speech by using linguistic predictions Neural dynamics differentially encode phrases and sentences during spoken language comprehension Hierarchical structure in language and action: A formal comparison Andrea mentions this book: The Geometry of Biological Time.

Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. This is one in a periodic series of episodes with Alex Gomez-Marin, exploring how the arts and humanities can impact (neuro)science. Artistic creations, like cinema, have the ability to momentarily lower our ever-critical scientific mindset and allow us to imagine alternate possibilities and experience emotions outside our normal scientific routines. Might this feature of art potentially change our scientific attitudes and perspectives? Frauke Sandig and Eric Black recently made the documentary film AWARE: Glimpses of Consciousness, which profiles six researchers studying consciousness from different perspectives. The film is filled with rich visual imagery and conveys a sense of wonder and awe in trying to understand subjective experience, while diving deep into the reflections of the scientists and thinkers approaching the topic from their various perspectives. This isn't a "normal" Brain Inspired episode, but I hope you enjoy the discussion! AWARE: Glimpses of Consciousness Umbrella Films 0:00 - Intro 19:42 - Mechanistic reductionism 45:33 - Changing views during lifetime 53:49 - Did making the film alter your views? 57:49 - ChatGPT 1:04:20 - Materialist assumption 1:11:00 - Science of consciousness 1:20:49 - Transhumanism 1:32:01 - Integrity 1:36:19 - Aesthetics 1:39:50 - Response to the film

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience Panayiota Poirazi runs the Poirazi Lab at the FORTH Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, and Yiota loves dendrites, those branching tree-like structures sticking out of all your neurons, and she thinks you should love dendrites, too, whether you study biological or artificial intelligence. In neuroscience, the old story was that dendrites just reach out and collect incoming signals for the all-important neuron cell body to process. Yiota, and people Like Matthew Larkum, with whom I chatted in episode 138, are continuing to demonstrate that dendrites are themselves computationally complex and powerful, doing many varieties of important signal transformation before signals reach the cell body. For example, in 2003, Yiota showed that because of dendrites, a single neuron can act as a two-layer artificial neural network, and since then others have shown single neurons can act as deeper and deeper multi-layer networks. In Yiota's opinion, an even more important function of dendrites is increased computing efficiency, something evolution favors and something artificial networks need to favor as well moving forward. Poirazi Lab Twitter: @YiotaPoirazi. Related papers Drawing Inspiration from Biological Dendrites to Empower Artificial Neural Networks. Illuminating dendritic function with computational models. Introducing the Dendrify framework for incorporating dendrites to spiking neural networks. Pyramidal Neuron as Two-Layer Neural Network 0:00 - Intro 3:04 - Yiota's background 6:40 - Artificial networks and dendrites 9:24 - Dendrites special sauce? 14:50 - Where are we in understanding dendrite function? 20:29 - Algorithms, plasticity, and brains 29:00 - Functional unit of the brain 42:43 - Engrams 51:03 - Dendrites and nonlinearity 54:51 - Spiking neural networks 56:02 - Best level of biological detail 57:52 - Dendrify 1:05:41 - Experimental work 1:10:58 - Dendrites across species and development 1:16:50 - Career reflection 1:17:57 - Evolution of Yiota's thinking

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience Nick Enfield is a professor of linguistics at the University of Sydney. In this episode we discuss topics in his most recent book, Language vs. Reality: Why Language Is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists. A central question in the book is what is language for? What's the function of language. You might be familiar with the debate about whether language evolved for each of us thinking our wonderful human thoughts, or for communicating those thoughts between each other. Nick would be on the communication side of that debate, but if by communication we mean simply the transmission of thoughts or information between people - I have a thought, I send it to you in language, and that thought is now in your head - then Nick wouldn't take either side of that debate. He argues the function language goes beyond the transmission of information, and instead is primarily an evolved solution for social coordination - coordinating our behaviors and attention. When we use language, we're creating maps in our heads so we can agree on where to go. For example, when I say, "This is brain inspired," I'm pointing you to a place to meet me on a conceptual map, saying, "Get ready, we're about to have a great time again!" In any case, with those 4 words, "This is brain inspired," I'm not just transmitting information from my head into your head. I'm providing you with a landmark so you can focus your attention appropriately. From that premise, that language is about social coordination, we talk about a handful of topics in his book, like the relationship between language and reality, the idea that all language is framing- that is, how we say something influences how to think about it. We discuss how our language changes in different social situations, the role of stories, and of course, how LLMs fit into Nick's story about language. Nick's website Twitter: @njenfield Book: Language vs. Reality: Why Language Is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists. Papers: Linguistic concepts are self-generating choice architectures 0:00 - Intro 4:23 - Is learning about language important? 15:43 - Linguistic Anthropology 28:56 - Language and truth 33:57 - How special is language 46:19 - Choice architecture and framing 48:19 - Language for thinking or communication 52:30 - Agency and language 56:51 - Large language models 1:16:18 - Getting language right 1:20:48 - Social relationships and language

Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Jeffrey Bowers is a psychologist and professor at the University of Bristol. As you know, many of my previous guests are in the business of comparing brain activity to the activity of units in artificial neural network models, when humans or animals and the models are performing the same tasks. And a big story that has emerged over the past decade or so is that there's a remarkable similarity between the activities and representations in brains and models. This was originally found in object categorization tasks, where the goal is to name the object shown in a given image, where researchers have compared the activity in the models good at doing that to the activity in the parts of our brains good at doing that. It's been found in various other tasks using various other models and analyses, many of which we've discussed on previous episodes, and more recently a similar story has emerged regarding a similarity between language-related activity in our brains and the activity in large language models. Namely, the ability of our brains to predict an upcoming word can been correlated with the models ability to predict an upcoming word. So the word is that these deep learning type models are the best models of how our brains and cognition work. However, this is where Jeff Bowers comes in and raises the psychology flag, so to speak. His message is that these predictive approaches to comparing artificial and biological cognition aren't enough, and can mask important differences between them. And what we need to do is start performing more hypothesis driven tests like those performed in psychology, for example, to ask whether the models are indeed solving tasks like our brains and minds do. Jeff and his group, among others, have been doing just that are discovering differences in models and minds that may be important if we want to use models to understand minds. We discuss some of his work and thoughts in this regard, and a lot more. Website Twitter: @jeffrey_bowers Related papers: Deep Problems with Neural Network Models of Human Vision. Parallel Distributed Processing Theory in the Age of Deep Networks. Successes and critical failures of neural networks in capturing human-like speech recognition. 0:00 - Intro 3:52 - Testing neural networks 5:35 - Neuro-AI needs psychology 23:36 - Experiments in AI and neuroscience 23:51 - Why build networks like our minds? 44:55 - Vision problem spaces, solution spaces, training data 55:45 - Do we implement algorithms? 1:01:33 - Relational and combinatorial cognition 1:06:17 - Comparing representations in different networks 1:12:31 - Large language models 1:21:10 - Teaching LLMs nonsense languages