Right, my point is sort of that both the BOLD response and fMRI sampling rates are far too "slow" (not nearly approaching the Nyquist frequency, I guess) a priori to deeply investigate something as fast as cognition.
Yeah I agree mostly. Cognition happens in multiple timescales, as such I don't think that fmri's sampling rate is a problem if we understand which cognitive phenomena it can actually address and which not. But there is definitely a tendency to not understand such limits of our tools.
Precisely, if we restrict fMRI to investigating phenomena and theories of cognition and the mind that are plausibly measurable at the appropriate temporal resolution, it will potentially start yielding some fruit.
It will also require fMRI researchers to think more carefully about their theories as well (e.g. noting the speed of the mind / amount and kinds of thinking involved in certain tasks, and being realistic about whether or not fMRI could actually capture something meaningful there). Too often there is no theory, and too many studies are just correlating patterns with some task without actually carefully thinking about the task and deconstructing the components, testing activations in those (e.g. ablation studies in AI research) and etc.
Depends on what you mean by cognition, but as you yourself said, BOLD may be correlated with certain kinds of long(er)-term activity, and that in itself is very useful if interpreted carefully. No one claims to detect single "thoughts" or anything of the sort, at least I haven't seen anything so shameless.
Well, a lot of task fMRI designs are pretty shameless and clearly haven't taken the temporal resolution issues seriously, at least when it comes to interpreting their findings in discussions (i.e. claiming that certain regions being involved must mean certain kind of cognition, e.g. "thoughts" must be involved too). And there have definitely been a few papers trying to show they can e.g. reconstruct the image ("thought") in a person's mind from the fMRI signal.
But I don't think we are really disagreeing on anything major here. I do think there is likely some useful potential locked away in carefully designed resting-state fMRI studies, probably especially for certain chronic and/or persistent systemic cognitive things like e.g. ADHD, autism, or, perhaps more fruitfully, it might just help with more basic understanding of things like sleep. But, I also won't be holding my breath for anything major coming out of fMRI anytime soon.
Funny, because these exact measures [0] were brought up in response to a similar claim I made over a year ago [1] about the resolution of our instrumentation.
There would appear to be a worrying trend of faith in scientism, or the belief that we already have all the answers squirreled away in a journal somewhere.
It's a bit funny, the qualia thing and sampling rates.
Obviously we hope what we learn from e.g. psychology and fMRI will help us explain more things about the mind, and surely most researchers in psychology hope their research will help us get some answers on things related to qualia as well. And almost certainly most good / consistent reductionist researchers must believe that qualia arise from the brain, at least in significant part.
However, precisely by this reductionist logic, and since it is immediately and phenomenally clear that the rate of change of qualia in the mind (or the "amount" of different qualia, i.e. images or sounds that one can process or generate in the mind in under a second) is incredibly fast, it follows immediately and logically without any need for an experiment that fMRI cannot have the temporal resolution needed for a rich understanding of the mind, simply based on knowing the TR (temporal sampling resolution) is so poor. And yet, I also find a lot of people in scientific brain research go oddly silent or seem to refuse to accept this argument unless some strange sort of published, quantificationist operationalization can be pointed to (hence my pre-emptive mentioning information transmission in neurons in under 100ms).
I'm not sure I'd call this scientism, exactly, I tend to see it as "selective quantificationism", i.e. that certain truths can only be proven as true if you introduce some kind of numerical measurement procedure and metrical abstraction. Like, no one demands a study with Scoville units to prove that e.g. a ghost pepper is at least an order of magnitude hotter than candied ginger, even though this is as blazingly obvious as the fact that the mind moves too fast for something that can barely capture images of the brain at a rate of two per second.
I'm not a scientist, and I don't even have a very good statistical background, so correct me if I'm wrong; would it be far to say that the lack of skepticism about fMRI studies in the broader public is due to scientism? Because of naive reductionism and a gut understanding of what is "scientific", people are far more skeptical of a study that says, "we surveyed 100,000 people" vs. "we scanned the brains of 10 people." I've noticed a similar phenomenon with psych vs. evolutionary psych. People have an image in their head of what is scientific that has nothing to do with statistical significance and everything to do with vibes.
It is tempting to speculate on what might cause the credulousness of the broader public re: fMRI, but I think there is enough / too much going on here for me to really be able to say anything with much confidence. Scientism especially is hard to define.
I think I broadly agree with you though that credulousness to (statistically and methodologically weak) scientific / technological claims mostly comes down to vibes and desires / needs, and not statistical significance, logical rigor, evidence, or etc.
Where needs / desires are high, vibes will (often) win over rationality, and vice-versa. It is easier for people to be objective about science that doesn't really clearly matter in any obvious direction, or at all. fMRI is "the mind", and thus consciousness, and so unfortunately reduces rational evaluation in much the same way speculation about AI and "consciousness" and etc does. *Shrug*
