Abstract
AbstractThis paper discusses the relevance of models for cognitive science that integrate mechanistic and computational aspects. Its main hypothesis is that a model of a cognitive system is satisfactory and explanatory to the extent that it bridges phenomena at multiple mechanistic levels, such that at least several of these mechanistic levels are shown to implement computational processes. The relevant parts of the computation must be mapped onto distinguishable entities and activities of the mechanism. The ideal is contrasted with two other accounts of modeling in cognitive science. The first has been presented by David Marr in combination with a distinction of “levels of computation”. The second builds on a hierarchy of “mechanistic levels” in the sense of Carl Craver. It is argued that neither of the two accounts secures satisfactory explanations of cognitive systems. The mechanistic-computational ideal can be thought of as resulting from a fusion of Marr’s and Craver’s ideals. It is defended as adequate and plausible in light of scientific practice, and certain metaphysical background assumptions are discussed.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference67 articles.
1. Baumgartner, M., & Casini, L. (2017). An abductive theory of constitution. Philosophy of Science, 84(2), 214–233.
2. Baumgartner, M., & Gebharter, A. (2016). Constitutive relevance, mutual manipulability, and fat-handedness. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67(3), 731–756.
3. Bechtel, W. (1994). Levels of description and explanation in cognitive science. Minds and Machines, 4(1), 1–25.
4. Bechtel, W. (2009). Looking down, around, and up: Mechanistic explanation in psychology. Philosophical Psychology, 22(5), 543–564.
5. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. (1993). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as scientific research strategies. New York: Princeton University Press.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献