Abstract Mechanisms and Neural Computation Abel Wajnerman
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
A characterization of computation and computational explanation is important in accounting for the explanatory power of many models in cognitive neuroscience. Piccinini (2015) describes computational models as both abstract and mechanistic. This approach stands in contrast to a usual way of understanding mechanism which implies that explanation is impoverished by abstraction. I argue that in order to provide a useful account of computational explanation in cognitive neuroscience, Piccininiʼs proposal must be complemented by an abstraction criterion that fulfills two conditions: motivating abstractions enough to make a model computational and not motivating the omission of information that is constitutive of mechanistic explanation. These conditions are relevant because although there are computational and mechanistic descriptions of neural processes (Piccinini & Bahar 2013) mechanism must, as a normative theory, determine whether the abstractions that these models involve are well motivated. I argue that the abstraction criterion proposed by Levy and Bechtel (2013) is a promising candidate to fulfill these requirements. First, I show that this criterion can legitimize the omission from recently proposed neurocognitive models of all features that are non-computational according to Piccinini’s approach (although it also motivates some modifications of his characterization of neural computation). Second, I argue that this criterion legitimizes those models only if we interpret them as including all the information constitutive of mechanistic explanation.
Abstract
A characterization of computation and computational explanation is important in accounting for the explanatory power of many models in cognitive neuroscience. Piccinini (2015) describes computational models as both abstract and mechanistic. This approach stands in contrast to a usual way of understanding mechanism which implies that explanation is impoverished by abstraction. I argue that in order to provide a useful account of computational explanation in cognitive neuroscience, Piccininiʼs proposal must be complemented by an abstraction criterion that fulfills two conditions: motivating abstractions enough to make a model computational and not motivating the omission of information that is constitutive of mechanistic explanation. These conditions are relevant because although there are computational and mechanistic descriptions of neural processes (Piccinini & Bahar 2013) mechanism must, as a normative theory, determine whether the abstractions that these models involve are well motivated. I argue that the abstraction criterion proposed by Levy and Bechtel (2013) is a promising candidate to fulfill these requirements. First, I show that this criterion can legitimize the omission from recently proposed neurocognitive models of all features that are non-computational according to Piccinini’s approach (although it also motivates some modifications of his characterization of neural computation). Second, I argue that this criterion legitimizes those models only if we interpret them as including all the information constitutive of mechanistic explanation.
참고문헌 (26)
- Alon, Uri, "An Introduction to Systems Biology: Design Principles of Biological Circuits" (2007), Chapman & Hall
- Alon, Uri, "Network Motifs: Theory and Experimental Approaches", Nature Reviews Genetics, 8, pp.450~461 (2007)
- Amos, S. W., "Principles of Transistor Circuits: Introduction to the Design of Amplifiers, Receivers, and Digital Circuits" (2000), Elsevier Science & Technology
- Bechtel, W., "Mechanistic Explanation and the Nature-Nurture Controversy", Bulletin d'Histoire Et d'pistmologie Des Sciences de La Vie, 12, pp.75~100 (2005)
- Blomfield, S., "Arithmetical operations performed by nerve cells", Brain Res, 69, pp.115~124 (1974)
- Bonds, A. B., "Role of inhibition in the specification of orientation selectivity of cells in the cat striate cortex", Visual Neuroscience, 2, pp.41~55 (1989)
- Worth Boone, "The cognitive neuroscience revolution", Synthese, 193(5), pp.1509~1534 (2016), Springer Nature[DOI]
- Boone, W., "(forthcoming in Philosophy of Science) Mechanistic Abstraction", ~
- Carandini, M., "Normalization as a canonical neural computation", Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, pp.51~62 (2012)
- Chirimuuta, M., "Minimal models and canonical neural computations: The distinctness of computational explanation in neuroscience", Synthese, 191(2), pp.127~154 (2014)
- Craver, C. F., "Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience" (2007), Oxford University Press
- Sabrina Haimovici, "A Problem for the Mechanistic Account of Computation", Journal of Cognitive Science, 14(2), pp.151~181 (2013), 인지과학연구소[DOI]
- Garson, J., "The Introduction of Information into Neurobiology", Philosophy of Science, 70(5), pp.926~936 (2003)
- Heeger, D. J., "Normalization of cell responses in the cat striate cortex", Visual Neuroscience, 9, pp.181~197 (1992)
- Hubel, D. H., "Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex", Journal of Physiology, 160, pp.106~154 (1962)
- Jonas, P., "Neural inhibition", Scholarpedia, 2(9), pp.3286~ (2007)
- Kaplan, D. M., "Explanation and description in computational neuroscience", Synthese, 183(3), pp.339~373 (2011)
- Lange, M., "What makes a scientific explanation distinctively mathematical?", British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64, pp.485~511 (2013)
- Levy, A., "Abstraction and the Organization of Mechanisms", Philosophy of Science, 80(2), pp.241~261 (2013)
- Piccinini, G., "Neural Computation and the Computational Theory of Cognition", Cognitive Science, 37(3), pp.453~488 (2013)
- Piccinini, G., "Physical Computation, a Mechanistic Account" (2015), Oxford University Press
- Shu, Y., "Barrages of synaptic activity control the gain and sensitivity of cortical neurons", J. Neurosci, 23, pp.10388~10401 (2003)
- Silver, R. A., "Neuronal arithmetic", Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, pp.474~489 (2010)
- Tsodyks, M., "Short-term synaptic plasticity", Scholarpedia, 8(10), pp.3153~ (2013)
- Vu, E. T., "Evidence for a computational distinction between proximal and distal neuronal inhibition", Science, 255, pp.1710~1712 (1992)
- Yantis, S., "Sensation and Perception" (2014), Worth Publishers