BI 183 Dan Goodman: Neural Reckoning

BI 183 Dan Goodman: Neural Reckoning

Brain Inspired
Brain Inspired
BI 183 Dan Goodman: Neural Reckoning
Loading
/

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.

BI 182: John Krakauer Returns… Again

BI 182: John Krakauer Returns… Again

Brain Inspired
Brain Inspired
BI 182: John Krakauer Returns… Again
Loading
/

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.

BI 181 Max Bennett: A Brief History of Intelligence

BI 181 Max Bennett: A Brief History of Intelligence

Brain Inspired
Brain Inspired
BI 181 Max Bennett: A Brief History of Intelligence
Loading
/

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.

BI 180 Panel Discussion: Long-term Memory Encoding and Connectome Decoding

BI 180 Panel Discussion: Long-term Memory Encoding and Connectome Decoding

Brain Inspired
Brain Inspired
BI 180 Panel Discussion: Long-term Memory Encoding and Connectome Decoding
Loading
/
BI 179 Laura Gradowski: Include the Fringe with Pluralism

BI 179 Laura Gradowski: Include the Fringe with Pluralism

Brain Inspired
Brain Inspired
BI 179 Laura Gradowski: Include the Fringe with Pluralism
Loading
/

Laura Gradowski is a philosopher of science at the University of Pittsburgh. Pluralism, or scientific pluralism anyway, 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.