David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Peter K. Machamer, Peter McLaughlin & Rick Grush (eds.), Theory and Method in the Neurosciences. University of Pittsburgh Press. 155--172 (2001)
I examine one of the conceptual cornerstones of the field known as computational neuroscience, especially as articulated in Churchland et al. (1990), an article that is arguably the locus classicus of this term and its meaning. The authors of that article try, but I claim ultimately fail, to mark off the enterprise of computational neuroscience as an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the cognitive, information-processing functions of the brain. The failure is a result of the fact that the authors provide no principled means to distinguish the study of neural systems as genuinely computational/information-processing from the study of any complex causal process. I then argue for two things. First, that in order to appropriately mark off computational neuroscience, one must be able to assign a semantics to the states over which an attempt to provide a computational explanation is made. Second, I show that neither of the two most popular ways of trying to effect such content assignation -- informational semantics and 'biosemantics' -- can make the required distinction, at least not in a way that a computational neuroscientist should be happy about. The moral of the story as I take it is not a negative one to the effect that computational neuroscience is in principle incapable of doing what it wants to do. Rather, it is to point out some work that remains to be done
|Keywords||Computation Neuroscience Semantics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Oron Shagrir (2010). Brains as Analog-Model Computers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (3):271-279.
Andreas K. Engel, Alexander Maye, Martin Kurthen & Peter König (2013). Where's the Action? The Pragmatic Turn in Cognitive Science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17 (5):202-209.
Similar books and articles
Iris van Rooij, Johan Kwisthout, Mark Blokpoel, Jakub Szymanik, Todd Wareham & Ivan Toni (2011). Intentional Communication: Computationally Easy or Difficult? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 5.
Gualtiero Piccinini & Andrea Scarantino (2011). Information Processing, Computation, and Cognition. Journal of Biological Physics 37 (1):1-38.
Eric Dietrich (1989). Semantics and the Computational Paradigm in Computational Psychology. Synthese 79 (April):119-41.
Oron Shagrir (2006). Why We View the Brain as a Computer. Synthese 153 (3):393-416.
Enrique Frias-Martinez & Fernand Gobet (2007). Automatic Generation of Cognitive Theories Using Genetic Programming. Minds and Machines 17 (3):287-309.
Axel Cleeremans, Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger: A Review of “Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience”. [REVIEW]
Roman Borisyuk (2000). Encyclopedia of Computational Neuroscience: The End of the Second Millennium. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):534-535.
David Michael Kaplan (2011). Explanation and Description in Computational Neuroscience. Synthese 183 (3):339-373.
Chris Eliasmith (forthcoming). Computational Neuroscience. In Paul R. Thagard (ed.), Philosophy of Psychology and Cognitive Science. Elsevier.
Gualtiero Piccinini (2006). Computational Explanation in Neuroscience. Synthese 153 (3):343-353.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads84 ( #14,515 of 1,098,129 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #56,973 of 1,098,129 )
How can I increase my downloads?