LogFAQs > #914770170

SterlingM posted...

Yes its given definitions to things we all intuitively know

But it can't get inside the brain, so why pretend we'll need it when neuroscience is fully developed

You don't intuitively know it. Many properties of these phenomenon counter normal intuition. People just think they know how people work.

You can think of psychology in the abstract, which might help you understand the goals and purposes of it. You have general input, stimuli, and you have output, behavior. By systematically manipulating the input and examining what happens to the output, you can get an idea as to what that blackbox function is doing. This is essentially David Marr's algorithmic level of abstraction.

Neuroscientists care about how the brain does these things, how it implements those computations, that's essentially at David Marr' implementation level of abstraction.

See, both are important levels to study. While they can get at similar questions, and the end run for neuroscientists is to understand how these computations are necessarily constrained by the brain's architecture, both level of analysis are important and are often asking very different questions.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]