MadSci Network: Neuroscience |
Dear Katja, Connectionism is one of the fastest growing approaches in psychology. In the last 15 years, it has taken its rightful place as a prominent perspective in our quest for the understanding of mental phenomena. As you already know, connectionism is an attempt to explore the computational properties of brain-like mechanisms. Some connectionists regard their models as real networks of real neurons, whereas others see their investigations as an attempt to directly understand the computational structure of thought. It must also be remembered that the term "connectionist networks" actually include more than 50 categories of networks currently under investigations (for a review, see Ellis and Humphreys, 1999). This wide variety in networks makes it difficult to answer a question like yours. The difficulty is increased tenfold when one considers that most models tackle only a restricted part of mental processes (e.g. memory, language, vision, attention) with the consequence that any "central executive unit" postulated commands only a part of the whole. You mention the "central executive system" as the postulated controlling unit of working memory (Baddeley, 1986) and you link it to the notion of "self". The actual role of Baddeley’s central executive is still a matter of much debate more than 15 years later, and it is refereed to by its detractors as a "black box", meaning a component whose inner workings are undefinable. Not unlike the mysterious "self", is it? Still, this central executive reigns only over working memory and was not meant as an expression of the cognitive, metacognitive and moral processes that define the self. The all encompassing connectionist model has not been elaborated yet, as even models of individual processes are still "in development". Later you wonder if "our brain makes decisions based on previously internalized knowledge" and whether "we come to realize these decisions only afterwards". This is a question that has bothered humanity since the ancient Greeks, and is has become one of the most famous debates in philosophy and psychology: "determinism versus free will". Are indeed all our decisions the arithmetical result of our past experiences (determinism) or do we have the possibility to express our own, personal, original conclusion (free will)? If I understand you correctly, then, the "sensible link" that you propose focuses on the concept of "self" in decision making, and taps into connectionism for insight about the existence of free will. I think this is impressive and that it shows interest for the larger questions, which is often lacking in empirical scientists. I’m not so surprised, however, that you were told to "scale it down" for your dissertation. It seems that you are more interested in high level processes (e.g. decision making) than in more basic systems. Many connectionists are tackling high-level cognition, thinking and reasoning and their developing models are more likely to include elements relating to self or consciousness issues (for a review, see Ellis and Humphreys, 1999). I should however point out that the study of more simple sensory systems, especially vision, has been known to give rise, from time to time, to great insights into the workings of human consciousness (e.g. Kolb and Braun, 1995, Crick 1996). I hope that this will help you in finding a suitable subject for your dissertation. Remember that scaling down your topic is best achieved not by narrowing your views to small ideas, but rather by focusing on a specific concept within the larger framework. Good Luck! Benoit References: Baddeley (1986) Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crick (1995) Nature, 379, 485-486. Ellis and Humphreys (1999) Connectionist Psychology. East Sussex: Psychology Press. Kolb and Braun (1995) Nature, 377, 336-338.
Try the links in the MadSci Library for more information on Neuroscience.