I'm writing my masters thesis in the field of computational neuroscience (using a spiking model). One of my supervisors is a cognitive scientist, who likes to use Marr's 3 levels of analysis. Marr's 'computational level' is the highest of the three, describing 'what does the system do?'. Confusingly, it seems to me that the field of computational neuroscience actually operates at Marr's lowest level (the 'hardware' level), and ironically, it is actually cognitive models that operate at Marr's computational level. How do I reconcile/explain this in my paper? Am I missing something or am I correct that this is confusing/contradictory?

  • $\begingroup$ I think you're best off discussing this with your supervisor. I would strongly, strongly disagree that computational neuroscience only operates at the 'hardware' level, however; Marr would certainly disagree as well. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause
    Oct 19, 2020 at 15:29


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.