HN Books @HNBooksMonth

The best books of Hacker News.

Hacker News Comments on
Principles of Neural Science

Eric R. Kandel, James H. Schwartz, Thomas M. Jessell · 3 HN comments
HN Books has aggregated all Hacker News stories and comments that mention "Principles of Neural Science" by Eric R. Kandel, James H. Schwartz, Thomas M. Jessell.
View on Amazon [↗]
HN Books may receive an affiliate commission when you make purchases on sites after clicking through links on this page.
Amazon Summary
A Doody's Core Title for 2011! 5 STAR DOODY'S REVIEW! "This is a simply wonderful book that makes accessible in one place all the details of how the neuron and brain work. The writing is clear. The drawings are elegant and educational. The book is a feast for both the eye and mind. The richness, the beauty, and the complexity of neuroscience is all captured in this superb book."-- Doody's Review Service Now in resplendent color, the new edition continues to define the latest in the scientific understanding of the brain, the nervous system, and human behavior. Each chapter is thoroughly revised and includes the impact of molecular biology in the mechanisms underlying developmental processes and in the pathogenesis of disease. Important features to this edition include a new chapter - Genes and Behavior; a complete updating of development of the nervous system; the genetic basis of neurological and psychiatric disease; cognitive neuroscience of perception, planning, action, motivation and memory; ion channel mechanisms; and much more.
HN Books Rankings

Hacker News Stories and Comments

All the comments and stories posted to Hacker News that reference this book.
Google cache for those who can't connect to the paper https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...

TLDR Response:

After taking a look at the paper, take a look at this post by the Google deep learning team. Take a look especially at the images.

http://googleresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/inceptionism-go...

I think most if not all of the author's arguments that the brain is not a computer, can also be applied to Google's deep learning (which obviously runs on computers).

Long response:

I think the author is very naive about how broad a computer is and what a computer can do. Deep learning is obviously running on a computer, but like the author states for the brain, any single image or fact is probably not encoded in a single place.

In addition, we have probabilistic data structures, for example a bloom filter. Would a computer running a bloom filter to recognize data it had seen before not be a computer because it did not store an complete representation of any one item?

What we are seeing now, is that as computers go beyond just storing and retrieving data, to actually doing stuff like speech/image/pattern recognition, the representation is becoming more and more like the brain representation.

In addition, the author ignores that the brain did indeed develop a way encode information exactly. If the author would like more information about this, I suggest they look up "drawing" and "writing" in wikipedia. With drawing and especially with writing, the brain developed a way to encode information exactly that could later be retrieved. In addition, it could be retrieved by other brains (if they know the language).

Also, the author proposes straw man arguments for the other side. I am somewhat familiar with both computers and brains ( I trained in Neurosurgery, but work now as a programmer), and I never met a professional who claimed that memories are stored in individual neurons! I was always taught that memories are encoded in the connections between neurons - which is very similar to how neural networks encode information ( as the strength of connections between elements of the neural network ).

It is also interesting that he quotes Kandel. When I actually read Principles of Neural Science (by Kandel and Schwartz - http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Eric-Kandel/...), I got the distinct impression that Kandel actually viewed the brain as an information processor, with lower level information being processed into higher level representations (see for example the chapter on the visual system).

So overall, the author takes a very limited view of both computers and brain and concludes (I think falsely) that the brain is not a computer.

panglott
> I never met a professional who claimed that memories are stored in individual neurons! http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/123485-mit-discovers-the-...
mannykannot
I do not think that is his conclusion, though he is certainly at fault for giving that impression. I think he is actually saying that it is a misleading to compare a brain too closely to a digital computer.

It is trivially true that the brain processes information - that is not much of a conclusion, it is a starting point, and it certainly does not mean that it is like a digital computer.

Okay, that helps, thanks.

For neuroscience first-year grad students, the gold standard is:

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Eric-Kandel/...

The fourth edition does a good job at higher-level stuff. But be forewarned: It is biology intensive.

For less biology and more cognitive neuroscience, you can try:

http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Neuroscience-Second-Michael-...

or

http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Neuroscience-Neuropsychology...

I used the Gazzaniga when I taught Intro to Cognitive Neuroscience even as I wasn't super impressed (which is a common complaint - tolerance, not true acceptance). I know some folks like the Banich book instead.

If, with your Math background, you're interested in neural computation and modeling there are also some good books along those lines. Just let me know and I'll hunt down the links.

wynand
Thanks robg & toddml, I was particularly interested in Principles of Neural Science and it's good to see both of you endorsing it.

I've already started teaching myself some first year biology (from a borrowed textbook), so I'm going for Principles.

robg
Happy to help. Focus on ions and channels if you're interested in neuron functions. That's a typical hangup for those new to biology. Some knowledge of the vascular system also helps. Otherwise, it mostly comes down to classifying cell types then brain and body regions.
My undergrad neuroscience textbook was the classic "Principles Of Neural Science" by Kandell, Schwartz, and Jessell.

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Eric-Kandel/...

If you're looking for something a bit more digestable, you could try "Biological Psychology: An Introduction to Behavioral, Cognitive, and Clinical Neuroscience", which is more appropriate for a survey level (100, 1000, depending on your school) course.

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Psychology-Introduction-Beh...

sgrove
I'd second principles of neural science, though that's with the expectation that the reader has the appropriate background in basic chemistry, biology, and maybe anatomy. Out of the dozens of books I have on neurosci, that's probably the single most comprehensive.
robg
Upvote for Kandell, not BioPsych. The latter just emphasizes the wrong things and too broadly.
jackchristopher
What about MITECS? [1] Is it outdated?

Eliezer Yudkowsky recommended it[2]. But I'm not sure if he still would.

I know you work at MIT, what do you use?

[1] http://www.amazon.com/MIT-Encyclopedia-Cognitive-Sciences-MI...

[2] http://sl4.org/wiki/MITECS

robg
That's just a reference volume. It's fine for what it is, but really as a launching off point for specific topics. And reading it cover to cover would get old, fast.
HN Books is an independent project and is not operated by Y Combinator or Amazon.com.
~ yaj@
;laksdfhjdhksalkfj more things
yahnd.com ~ Privacy Policy ~
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.