The scope and limits of a mechanistic view of computational explanation

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

The scope and limits of a mechanistic view of computational explanation. / Serban, Maria.

In: Synthese, Vol. 192, No. 10, 10.2015, p. 3371–3396.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Serban, M 2015, 'The scope and limits of a mechanistic view of computational explanation', Synthese, vol. 192, no. 10, pp. 3371–3396. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11229-015-0709-1

APA

Serban, M. (2015). The scope and limits of a mechanistic view of computational explanation. Synthese, 192(10), 3371–3396. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11229-015-0709-1

Vancouver

Serban M. The scope and limits of a mechanistic view of computational explanation. Synthese. 2015 Oct;192(10):3371–3396. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11229-015-0709-1

Author

Serban, Maria. / The scope and limits of a mechanistic view of computational explanation. In: Synthese. 2015 ; Vol. 192, No. 10. pp. 3371–3396.

Bibtex

@article{4c4e04a65bb846948002882fe73c3413,
title = "The scope and limits of a mechanistic view of computational explanation",
abstract = "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, 2013) 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.",
keywords = "Faculty of Humanities, neural computation, explanation, mechanism",
author = "Maria Serban",
year = "2015",
month = oct,
doi = "10.1007%2Fs11229-015-0709-1",
language = "English",
volume = "192",
pages = "3371–3396",
journal = "Synthese",
issn = "0039-7857",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "10",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The scope and limits of a mechanistic view of computational explanation

AU - Serban, Maria

PY - 2015/10

Y1 - 2015/10

N2 - 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, 2013) 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.

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, 2013) 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.

KW - Faculty of Humanities

KW - neural computation

KW - explanation

KW - mechanism

U2 - 10.1007%2Fs11229-015-0709-1

DO - 10.1007%2Fs11229-015-0709-1

M3 - Journal article

VL - 192

SP - 3371

EP - 3396

JO - Synthese

JF - Synthese

SN - 0039-7857

IS - 10

ER -

ID: 172263697