What do we study in neuroscience? Recent advances in our understanding of both non-neuronal cells within the nervous system and contemporary machine learning models necessitate a renewed focus on answering this foundational question in sufficient generality to be able to capture a wide array of phenomena whose deep resonances may escape more restrictive starting points. Here, I present two investigations that both tug at tensions within traditional conceptions.
First, I explore calcium activity in the astrocyte network, where tantalizing results have suggested the possibility that these neglected cells carry wide-reaching consequences for the functioning of brains and organisms. The results of these investigations reveal not only that astrocytes' bidirectional interactions with neurons carry a remarkable amount of structure in relation to a core physiological state (sleep), but also suggest that astrocytes may perform sophisticated spatial and temporal integration of their proximal neuronal inputs, implementing a form of combinatorial logic.
Second, I explore the structure of how language models respond when placed in relationship with highly-evocative naturalistic text. In the early stages of the explosion of interest around language models, a common argument levied against them was that, because they were trained to solve the task of next-token prediction (that is, of learning syntax), language models lacked actual understanding of the meaning of the tokens they were predicting (that is, of semantics). The results here—generating a rich and highly-structured portrait of human emotional life, through simple prompt-based impersonation and question-answering geared toward the practical task of hypothesis generation and symptom annotation in psychiatry—add to a growing body of work suggesting that, on the contrary, by solving the problem of generating language syntax, these models do (and, as implied by recent theoretical work, perhaps must) learn a latent structural image of semantics.
Finally, I draw the threads of these investigations together toward an answer of that foundational question: in neuroscience, we study the dynamics of interacting world models. I sketch a framework, the postmodern synthesis, of how the mechanics of these changing minds---when viewed as consisting solely of their relational structure---might be rigorously modeled using the mathematical language of double categories. This framework touches formal resonances with both quantum field theory and classical genetics. By framing our science the other way 'round, from the perspective of the mental content, rather than its material implementation, we may be able to ask new questions.