Rodrigo Ventura wrote:
> . For instance, take the classification of knowledge in
> non-declarative and declarative. In this classification there is no
> mention to brain zones where this knowledge is hold, but rather a
> definition of the proprieties of each of them.
Actually, that difference was a result of anatomical-related studies.
When different locations of lesions/damage caused different kinds of
memory loss, the classification sprang into being. My opinion is that in
neuroscience, you always do need to relate things to functional areas
['anatomy'] and how the brain actually works.
It's entirely possible to have a model of visual processing that only
uses a single area with a lot of cross-connections and processing.
However, that's not how the visual system in primates works. Or to model
a process in a way that violates some of the signalling properties of
neurons. So even if these models take the input and come up with the same
output as a real brain, are they valid?