Doby Rahnev

@dobyrahnev.bsky.social

Perceptual decision making, visual metacognition, computational cognition, cognitive neuroscience, neuroAI. Associate professor at Georgia Tech. Director of Computations of Subjective Perception lab: https://rahnevlab.gatech.edu

Excited to participate in a GAC discussion at #CCN2026 on Aug 4th! Is NeuroAI on the right track? What are the most glaring issues? Comment below and help us prepare for our panel discussion! sites.google.com/ccneuro.org/...

CogCompNeuro@cogcompneuro.bsky.social · 2mo ago

#CCN2026 will feature three GAC debates: Does NeuroAI adopt suitable methods & frameworks to understand mind & brain? Do world models emerge in prediction networks? Should neural population activity explain representations or transformations? The review period is now open. 🖥️ 2026.ccneuro.org/gac

I'm not a consciousness researcher, but I really enjoyed this essay. Rings very true to me. I also always kinda fell into "consciousness has no scientific definition, so I'm not sure what we're talking about"

Consciousness friends: I'm genuinely curious what you'd respond to Brad's essay? My typical response to the question if I study consciousness is that "I don't know what consciousness is". Perhaps this is my poor way of expressing discomfort with studying scientifically a first-person concept.

Russ Poldrack@russpoldrack.org · 2mo ago

"Nobody needs convincing that a science of the Meaning of Life is the wrong project. I will argue that a science of phenomenal consciousness is wrong for exactly the same reason: neither is amenable to the third-person perspective science requires." by @profdata.bsky.social arxiv.org/abs/2606.00226

"Nobody needs convincing that a science of the Meaning of Life is the wrong project. I will argue that a science of phenomenal consciousness is wrong for exactly the same reason: neither is amenable to the third-person perspective science requires." by @profdata.bsky.social arxiv.org/abs/2606.00226

Consciousness, AI, and the Limits of Scientific Explanation

Science is constitutively third-personal: its findings are in principle reproducible by any observer, independent of perspective, and answerable to measurement. This is the source of its power and als...

arxiv.org

New paper: "Introspection and Scientific Data" for the Handbook of Introspection, about the role of introspection in the production of scientific data. My view: introspection doesn't deliver a special 'subjective' kind of data and there's nothing special about studying consciousness.

Introducing meta-🔼! (meta-delta) Really excited about this one. We provide a principled, performance-corrected measure of metacognitive bias, placing it on an equal methodological footing with meta-d, and showing robust test-retest reliability to boot. Check out Kevin's thread for more details! 🧠🧪

Kevin O’Neill@kevingoneill.github.io · 3mo ago

In a new preprint w/ @tianqizhan.bsky.social & @smfleming.bsky.social, we developed a new measure of metacognitive bias (over/under confidence in individual decisions)! doi.org/10.31234/osf...

What does it mean for cognition to be Bayesian? The view that cognition is Bayesian inference is often intended at Marr's computational level. In a new paper in Nat Rev Psych, @kaixue98.bsky.social and I formulate the "explicit-Bayes" hypothesis that lives at the algorithmic level. rdcu.be/ff1XA

The explicit-Bayes hypothesis for cognition

Nature Reviews Psychology - It is often asserted that human cognition is Bayesian, but that broad claim is difficult to test in a falsifiable way. We suggest that researchers specifically assess a...

rdcu.be

🚨🚨JOB ALERT🚨🚨 I'm hiring a cogsci/philosophy/compneuro postdoc at @ucl.ac.uk @uclbrainscience.bsky.social @uclpals.bsky.social! www.jobs.ac.uk/job/DRH486/p... Come to London & work on frameworks for "testing" for consciousness using Bayesian belief updating & latent variable modeling. Pls share!

Postdoctoral Research Fellow at UCL

Discover Postdoctoral Research Fellow jobs and more in higher education on jobs.ac.uk. Apply for further details on the top job board.

jobs.ac.uk

SCORE, a collaboration of 865 researchers, is now released as three papers in Nature, six preprints, and a lot of data (cos.io/score/). SCORE examined repeatability of findings from the social-behavioral sciences and tested whether human and automated methods could predict replicability.

SCORE | Center for Open Science

SCORE shows that there is no shortcut to producing credible research findings, and there is no single indicator of trustworthiness. Research progress depends on transparency, rigor, and establishing r...

cos.io