Neuroclassicism is the view that cognition is explained by “classical” computing mechanisms in the nervous system that exhibit a clear demarcation between processing machinery and read–write memory. The psychologist C. R. Gallistel has mounted a sophisticated defense of neuroclassicism by drawing from ethology and computability theory to argue that animal brains necessarily contain read–write memory mechanisms. This argument threatens to undermine the “connectionist” orthodoxy in contemporary neuroscience, which does not seem to recognize any such mechanisms. In this paper I argue that the neuroclassicist critique rests on a misunderstanding of how computability theory constrains theorizing about natural computing mechanisms.

中文翻译：

---

反对神经古典主义：关于扶手椅神经科学的危险

神经古典主义认为认知是由神经系统中的“经典”计算机制来解释的，这些机制在处理机器和读写记忆之间表现出清晰的界限。心理学家 CR Gallistel 从行为学和可计算性理论中为神经古典主义进行了复杂的辩护，认为动物大脑必然包含读写记忆机制。这一论点有可能破坏当代神经科学中的“联结主义”正统观念，它似乎不承认任何此类机制。在本文中，我认为神经古典主义的批评建立在对可计算性理论如何限制自然计算机制的理论化的误解之上。