Talk:Computational neuroscience

message: Lehession (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

message: Ok. I can't edit this page if my edits get undone. I am a leading expert in the field, and as opposed to the person undoing my edits not anonymous. The text does not properly represent the mainstream views of the field. The other editor may know the trappenberg book (as they say, it has 400 cites"). I know all the major text books (and many others, e.g. Dayan and Abbott are far more popular). And I organized the leading conference in the area and thus know the spectrum of what people work on. My version before the undo was far better than what we have now. but I have no interest in participating in an edit war. Best. Konrad Kording  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koerding (talk • contribs) 19:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  refactoring 

message: It is not the case that ML, etc is not part of comp neuro, there are literally 1000s of papers bridging between the two. Maybe that criticism should be edited back in as something
related to disagreements in the field.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koerding (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition 

message: I thought "computational" was meant in the sense of "looking for computations in the brain" and not "using computers to model the brain". the last option is certainly something of little future since the field is studying the interactions of multiples agents at different levels (synapses, neurons, assemblies, areas, ...). Meduz (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computational 

message: I think this article should not be merged with neuroinformatics, as computational neuroscience deals with computational models for various levels of neuroscience and is hence more theoretical, on the other hand neuroinformatics deals with software applications and projects used to build these, and is hence more practical. Computational models are not always necessarily made using a neuroinformatics tool. 82.6.110.89 07:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  neuroinformatics 

message: Especially the Current research section. It needs sources discussing mapping and simulation of animal brains such as C. elegans. Mange01 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please contribute to the [[whole brain emulation]] article 

message: I've just discovered something.  The last link I posted above referenced Cosmelli (2007) who talks about "neurodynamics".  From our "neural oscillations" wiki:
"The study of neural oscillations belongs to the field of “neurodynamics”, an area of research in the cognitive sciences that places a strong focus upon the dynamic character of neural activity in describing brain function. The term neurodynamics dates back before the 1940s,[4] and is an offshoot of neuro-cybernetics using differential equations to describe neural activity patterns. Research in neurodynamics involves the interdisciplinary areas of contemporary theoretical neurobiology, nonlinear dynamics, complex adaptive systems and statistical physics. Neurodynamics is often contrasted with the popular computational and modular approaches of cognitive neuroscience, and with the implicit or explicit representationalism in cognitive science."
Notice how our own wiki author calls it a field.  So: "Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience", "Dynamical Neuroscience", and "neurodynamics" all seem to be the same thing to me and they seem to meet notability requirements when you include the more popular term, "neurodynamics". Xurtio (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but you should choose a title and a subject for that article. Because right now what I see in this article is a description of computational neuroscience with higher number of computers. Evolving technology does increase the amount of computations we can make every year, but that does not, in my view, justify the creation of a new terminology for a field that is using the same old equations on a greater scale. And some of the references you bring here are just beside the track; in the article you write about single neuron modelisation and in the references they mention how cognitive processes could be modeled in huge networks. From reading the article right now, I don't see anything stating that cognitive neuroscience is the main focus that distinguishes dynamical neuroscience from other approaches. I don't have anything against the author you cite or against people identifying themselves to that approache, I'm saying the current article has nothing to do with what you describe. The first 2-3 sentences of wiki article about an approach needs to state clearly for everybody what the field studies and how it relates to other fields. "A dynamical system can be represented with a geometric map that describes the trajectories of variables in the phase space. Such systems can experience bifurcation (a qualitative change in behavior) as a function of the bifurcation parameter and often exhibit chaos. Dynamical systems generally require the tools of nonlinear analysis to investigate." is not an understandable definition of the field. I'll adopt Tryptofish's stance; make some major modifications, remove the stuff that actually does not belong to this subfield and if the article is of acceptable quality I won't oppose to remove the merge. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  I think this is the state of the discipline though, too, that makes it difficult to define.  It seems to have originated from cognitive neurosciences... but it seems many physicists and neurobiologists are actually doing the physiological data simulation (not paying much mind to the cognitive aspect of it) and then collaborating with the cognitive scientists.  If you look at Eugene Izhikivech's CV, you may see what I mean (for instance, his book "Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience" is all physiological... but he attended a Dynamical Neuroscience meeting that consists of cognitive scientists and psychologists. I don't know what the cognitive scientists do with it, cause I'm on the physiological end.  I will have to spend some time researching that.  Chaos theory is also an important topic here that hasn't been brought up.  Actually, chaos theory may well be the main course because it accounts for apparent stochastics in a classical regime.  Bifurcation allows for systems to transfer from chaos, to oscillatory, to steady state, chaos being the most rich in terms of dynamics.  I do somewhat reluctantly appreciate your scrutiny Jean, thank you.  Xurtio (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Solution

message: I guess if there's even the slightest chance, I don't want to mislead people.  I'll come back and write this article in about five years if somebody who knows what they're talking about doesn't first. In the meantime, I'm going to contribute to my field (that you don't believe in) by doing the Morris-Lecar Model as that's the specific research I do.  I would enjoy your criticism there, as well. Xurtio (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I'm happy the article is deleted in its current state but I'll be available if you want to work on it on a talk page or something to provide comments. I'd like to specify that I never said I do not believe in your field, I said that the way it was presented was 1) redundant with other pages in Wikipedia 2) not clear 3) historically false. I provided numerous specific comments by putting emphasis on what was false, and it was essentially because of the pseudo-revolutionary tone where all neurobiologists were wrong and thought the neurons were simple after which dynamical neuroscience came and showed us how complex they were. I hope you won't be discouraged by this experience, I think you work well and you seem to take critics seriously. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Deleted

message: The article is is on my user page: User:Xurtio/Dynamical_neuroscience If anyone wants to rip some stuff out of it to put in Computational neuroscience. But please let me know what you use on the discussion page there so that there's no overlap if I ever come back to this project.  Xurtio (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scraps

message: I have a strong urge to de-cruftify this article, which has become essentially a link page.  Any objections to doing that? Looie496 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've just done a thorough housecleaning.  There may still be a little bit of cruft left, but I think I got rid of most of it. Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruft 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Computational neuroscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012155706/http://www.neurocomp.fr/index.php?page=welcome to http://www.neurocomp.fr/index.php?page=welcome
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429094455/http://www.nncn.de/Aktuelles-en/bernsteinsymposium/Symposium/view?set_language=en to http://www.nncn.de/Aktuelles-en/bernsteinsymposium/Symposium/view?set_language=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified