The scope and limits of a mechanistic view of computational explanation.

An increasing number of philosophers have promoted the idea that mechanism provides a fruitful framework for thinking about the explanatory contributions of computational approaches in cognitive neuroscience. For instance, Piccinini and Bahar (Cogn Sci 37(3):453-488, ) have recently argued that neur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Synthese Vol. 192; no. 10; pp. 3371 - 3397
Autor principal: Serban, Maria
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Oct2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=111176320&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 111176320
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00397857
        4LI
      jtl: Synthese
      issn: 00397857
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Oct2015
      vid: 192
      iid: 10
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        111176320
        10.1007/s11229-015-0709-1
      ppf: 3371
      ppct: 26
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 540KB
      tig:
        atl: The scope and limits of a mechanistic view of computational explanation.
      aug:
        au: Serban, Maria
        affil: Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, 817 Cathedral of Learning Pittsburgh USA
      su:
        Mechanism (Philosophy)
        Philosophers
        Cognitive neuroscience
        Thought & thinking
        Cognitive ability
      sug:
        subj:
          Mechanism (Philosophy)
          Philosophers
          Cognitive neuroscience
          Thought & thinking
          Cognitive ability
      keyword:
        Computational models
        Explanation
        Mechanism
        Neural computation
      ab: An increasing number of philosophers have promoted the idea that mechanism provides a fruitful framework for thinking about the explanatory contributions of computational approaches in cognitive neuroscience. For instance, Piccinini and Bahar (Cogn Sci 37(3):453-488, ) have recently argued that neural computation constitutes a sui generis category of physical computation which can play a genuine explanatory role in the context of investigating neural and cognitive processes. The core of their proposal is to conceive of computational explanations in cognitive neuroscience as a subspecies of mechanistic explanations. This paper identifies several challenges facing their mechanistic account and sketches an alternative way of thinking about the epistemic roles of computational approaches used in the study of brain and cognition. Drawing on examples from both low-level and systems-level computational neuroscience, I argue that at least some computational explanations of neural and cognitive processes are partially independent from mechanistic constraints.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2015. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Synthese
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2015
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N