Codes, communication and cognition

Stevan Harnad
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19001481
2019-06-05
Abstract:Brette (2019) criticizes the notion of neural coding because it seems to entail that neural signals need to be decoded by or for some receiver in the head. If that were so, then neural coding would indeed be homuncular (Brette calls it dualistic), requiring an entity to decipher the code. But I think the plea of Brett to think instead in terms of complex, interactive causal throughput is preaching to the converted. Turing (not Shannon) has already shown the way. In any case, the metaphor of neural coding has little to do with the symbol grounding problem.
Neurons and Cognition
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper attempts to explore the applicability and significance of the concept of neural coding in brain science research. The author Stevan Harnad commented on Brette's (2019) view. Brette believes that the concept of neural coding is problematic because it implies that neural signals need to be "decoded" by a receiver in the brain, which involves a homunculus - like assumption, that is, an entity is required to interpret these codes. This view is considered dualistic. Harnad agrees with Brette's view of avoiding simply regarding neural activity as an information - transmission process that needs to be decoded, but he believes that this position of Brette has been widely accepted in the cognitive science community. Harnad emphasizes that cognitive science is more concerned with what organisms (and thus their brains) can do and how they do it. He points out that cells (including neurons) do transmit signals, and this kind of transmission also exists in plants and machines. However, distinguishing which behaviors are cognitive behaviors and which are non - cognitive behaviors (such as the functions of plants or the heart) is mainly a matter of definition. Harnad further discusses the importance of Turing machines and Shannon's information theory in cognitive science. He proposes that one of the goals of cognitive science is to design systems that can perform all the tasks that humans can perform, and these tasks are indistinguishable from human behavior in the eyes of humans. This is also the standard of the famous Turing Test. Harnad also mentions the symbol - grounding problem, that is, even if a computer passes the Turing Test, it does not mean that it truly understands the information it processes, because this information has not established a connection with objects in the real world. Overall, the problem this paper attempts to solve is how to understand the working mode of the brain more accurately, especially in the application of the concept of neural coding, and how to simulate and understand cognitive processes through computational models. Harnad supports a more dynamic and interactive perspective to view brain functions, rather than simplifying it to the process of information encoding and decoding.