Skip to main content

Grace Lindsay - Four Way Interview

Grace Lindsay is a computational neuroscientist currently based at University College, London. She completed her PhD at the Centre for Theoretical Neuroscience at Columbia University, where her research focused on building mathematical models of how the brain controls its own sensory processing. Before that, she earned a bachelor’s degree in Neuroscience from the University of Pittsburgh and received a research fellowship to study at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Freiburg, Germany. She was awarded a Google PhD Fellowship in Computational Neuroscience in 2016 and has spoken at several international conferences. She is also the producer and co-host of Unsupervised Thinking, a podcast covering topics in neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Her first book is Models of the Mind.

Why science?

I started my undergraduate degree as a neuroscience and philosophy double major and I think what drew me to both topics was the idea that if we just think rigorously enough we can make a lot of progress understanding how the world, and ourselves as humans in it, works. Now, as a practicing scientist, I really do appreciate the strict standards for critical thinking and evidence-backed beliefs this profession has instilled in me.

Why this book?

I am a computational neuroscientist and most of the time that I tell people that they really don’t have any idea what it means. Computational neuroscience is an approach to studying the brain that involves mathematical analyses and model-building, and it is becoming an increasingly dominant way for neuroscientists to try to understanding how the brain works. I wanted to share the fruits of this field with the world so that they can see what the future of neuroscience will look like, but also provide the context and history that shows how mathematics has always played a role in our understanding of the brain.

What’s next?

I’m a scientist, so I am going to keep on doing my research, which is about building mathematical models of how the brain processes and uses visual information. But I would like to write another book someday--possibly about modelling in science more generally, including physical and mathematical models.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

I’ve been trying to follow some of the progress in how scientists are trying to address and prevent climate change. While climate change obviously still fills me with a lot of anxiety, I have felt a sense of excitement and respect for the people using science creatively to innovate in this area.


Popular posts from this blog

A Citizen's Guide to Artificial Intelligence - John Zerilli et al ****

The cover of this book set off a couple of alarm bells. Not only does that 'Citizen's Guide' part of the title raise the spectre of a pompous book-length moan, the list of seven authors gives the feel of a thesis written by committee. It was a real pleasure, then, to discover that this is actually a very good book. I ought to say straight away what it isn't - despite that title, it isn't a book written in a style that's necessarily ideal for a general audience. Although the approach is often surprisingly warm and human, it is an academic piece of writing. As a result, in places it's a bit of a trudge to get through it. Despite this, though, the topic is important enough - and, to be fair, the way it is approached is good enough - that it deserves to be widely read. John Zerilli et al give an effective, very balanced exploration of artificial intelligence. Although not structured as such, it's a SWOT analysis, giving us the strengths, weaknesses, opportun

The Science of Can and Can't - Chiara Marletto *****

Without doubt, Chiara Marletto has achieved something remarkable here, though the nature of the topic does not make for an easy read. The book is an attempt to popularise constructor theory - a very different approach to physics, which Oxford quantum physicist David Deutsch has developed with Marletto. Somewhat oddly, the book doesn't use the term constructor theory, but rather the distinctly clumsier 'science of can and can't'. The idea is that physics is formulated in a way that is inherently limited because it depends on using mechanisms that follows the progress of dynamic systems using the laws of physics. This method isn't applicable in circumstances where either something may happen, but won't necessarily, nor where something isn't allowed to happen (hence the science of can and can't, which probably should be the science of could and can't if we are going to be picky). Deutsch and Marletto have proposed a way of using 'counterfactuals'