32 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
Carl F. Craver [26]Carl Craver [6]
  1. Carl F. Craver (2013). Functions and Mechanisms: A Perspectivalist View. In. In Philippe Huneman (ed.), Functions: Selection and Mechanisms. Springer. 133--158.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Donna Kwan, Carl F. Craver, Leonard Green, Joel Myerson & R. Shayna Rosenbaum (2013). Dissociations in Future Thinking Following Hippocampal Damage: Evidence From Discounting and Time Perspective in Episodic Amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142 (4):1355.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Carl F. Craver & David M. Kaplan (2011). Towards a Mechanistic Philosophy of Neuroscience. In Steven French & Juha Saatsi (eds.), Continuum Companion to the Philosophy of Science. Continuum. 268.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Carl F. Craver & Sarah K. Robins (2011). No Nonsense Neuro-Law. Neuroethics 4 (3):195-203.
    In Minds, Brains, and Norms, Pardo and Patterson deny that the activities of persons (knowledge, rule-following, interpretation) can be understood exclusively in terms of the brain, and thus conclude that neuroscience is irrelevant to the law, and to the conceptual and philosophical questions that arise in legal contexts. On their view, such appeals to neuroscience are an exercise in nonsense. We agree that understanding persons requires more than understanding brains, but we deny their pessimistic conclusion. Whether neuroscience can be used (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. David Michael Kaplan & Carl F. Craver (2011). The Explanatory Force of Dynamical and Mathematical Models in Neuroscience: A Mechanistic Perspective. Philosophy of Science 78 (4):601-627.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Gualtiero Piccinini & Carl Craver (2011). Integrating Psychology and Neuroscience: Functional Analyses as Mechanism Sketches. [REVIEW] Synthese 183 (3):283-311.
    We sketch a framework for building a unified science of cognition. This unification is achieved by showing how functional analyses of cognitive capacities can be integrated with the multilevel mechanistic explanations of neural systems. The core idea is that functional analyses are sketches of mechanisms , in which some structural aspects of a mechanistic explanation are omitted. Once the missing aspects are filled in, a functional analysis turns into a full-blown mechanistic explanation. By this process, functional analyses are seamlessly integrated (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Sarah Robins & Carl Craver (2011). No Nonsense Neuro-Law. Neuroethics 4 (3):195-203.
    In Minds, Brains, and Norms , Pardo and Patterson deny that the activities of persons (knowledge, rule-following, interpretation) can be understood exclusively in terms of the brain, and thus conclude that neuroscience is irrelevant to the law, and to the conceptual and philosophical questions that arise in legal contexts. On their view, such appeals to neuroscience are an exercise in nonsense. We agree that understanding persons requires more than understanding brains, but we deny their pessimistic conclusion. Whether neuroscience can be (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Carl F. Craver (2010). Prosthetic Models. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):840-851.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Carl F. Craver (2009). Explaining the Brain. OUP Oxford.
    What distinguishes good explanations in neuroscience from bad? Carl F. Craver constructs and defends standards for evaluating neuroscientific explanations that are grounded in a systematic view of what neuroscientific explanations are: descriptions of multilevel mechanisms. In developing this approach, he draws on a wide range of examples in the history of neuroscience (e.g. Hodgkin and Huxley's model of the action potential and LTP as a putative explanation for different kinds of memory), as well as recent philosophical work on the nature (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Carl F. Craver (2009). Mechanisms and Natural Kinds. Philosophical Psychology 22 (5):575-594.
    It is common to defend the Homeostatic Property Cluster ( HPC ) view as a third way between conventionalism and essentialism about natural kinds ( Boyd , 1989, 1991, 1997, 1999; Griffiths , 1997, 1999; Keil , 2003; Kornblith , 1993; Wilson , 1999, 2005; Wilson , Barker , & Brigandt , forthcoming ). According to the HPC view, property clusters are not merely conventionally clustered together; the co-occurrence of properties in the cluster is sustained by a similarity generating ( (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Sarah K. Robins & Carl F. Craver (2009). Biological Clocks: Explaining with Models of Mechanisms. In John Bickle (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Neuroscience. Oxford University Press. 41--67.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Carl F. Craver (2008). Physical Law and Mechanistic Explanation in the Hodgkin and Huxley Model of the Action Potential. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):1022-1033.
    Hodgkin and Huxley’s model of the action potential is an apparent dream case of covering‐law explanation in biology. The model includes laws of physics and chemistry that, coupled with details about antecedent and background conditions, can be used to derive features of the action potential. Hodgkin and Huxley insist that their model is not an explanation. This suggests either that subsuming a phenomenon under physical laws is insufficient to explain it or that Hodgkin and Huxley were wrong. I defend Hodgkin (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Carl F. Craver & Anna Alexandrova (2008). No Revolution Necessary: Neural Mechanisms for Economics. Economics and Philosophy 24 (3):381-406.
    We argue that neuroeconomics should be a mechanistic science. We defend this view as preferable both to a revolutionary perspective, according to which classical economics is eliminated in favour of neuroeconomics, and to a classical economic perspective, according to which economics is insulated from facts about psychology and neuroscience. We argue that, like other mechanistic sciences, neuroeconomics will earn its keep to the extent that it either reconfigures how economists think about decision-making or how neuroscientists think about brain mechanisms underlying (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Carl Craver (2007). Constitutive Explanatory Relevance. Journal of Philosophical Research 32:3-20.
    In what sense are the activities and properties of components in a mechanism explanatorily relevant to the behavior of a mechanism as a whole? I articulate this problem, the problem of constitutive relevance, and I show that it must be solved if we are to understand mechanisms and mechanistic explanation. I argue against some putative solutions to the problem of constitutive relevance, and I sketch a positive account according to which relevance is analyzed in terms ofrelationships of mutual manipulability between (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Carl F. Craver (2007). Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press ;.
    Carl Craver investigates what we are doing when we sue neuroscience to explain what's going on in the brain.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Carl F. Craver & William Bechtel (2007). Top-Down Causation Without Top-Down Causes. Biology and Philosophy 22 (4):547-563.
    We argue that intelligible appeals to interlevel causes (top-down and bottom-up) can be understood, without remainder, as appeals to mechanistically mediated effects. Mechanistically mediated effects are hybrids of causal and constitutive relations, where the causal relations are exclusively intralevel. The idea of causation would have to stretch to the breaking point to accommodate interlevel causes. The notion of a mechanistically mediated effect is preferable because it can do all of the required work without appealing to mysterious interlevel causes. When interlevel (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Carl Craver, Why the Hodgkin and Huxely Model Does Not Explain the Action Potential.
    Hodgkin and Huxley’s 1952 model of the action potential is an apparent dream case of covering-law explanation. The model appeals to general laws of physics and chemistry (specifically, Ohm’s law and the Nernst equation), and the laws, coupled with details about antecedent and background conditions, entail many of the significant properties of the action potential. However, Hodgkin and Huxley insist that their model falls short of an explanation. This historical fact suggests either that there is more to explaining the action (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Carl F. Craver (2006). When Mechanistic Models Explain. Synthese 153 (3):355-376.
    Not all models are explanatory. Some models are data summaries. Some models sketch explanations but leave crucial details unspecified or hidden behind filler terms. Some models are used to conjecture a how-possibly explanation without regard to whether it is a how-actually explanation. I use the Hodgkin and Huxley model of the action potential to illustrate these ways that models can be useful without explaining. I then use the subsequent development of the explanation of the action potential to show what is (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Carl F. Craver & Robert A. Wilson (2006). Realization. In P. Thagard (ed.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Psychology and Cognitive Science. Elsevier.
    For the greater part of the last 50 years, it has been common for philosophers of mind and cognitive scientists to invoke the notion of realization in discussing the relationship between the mind and the brain. In traditional philosophy of mind, mental states are said to be realized, instantiated, or implemented in brain states. Artificial intelligence is sometimes described as the attempt either to model or to actually construct systems that realize some of the same psychological abilities that we and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Carl Craver & William Bechtel (2006). Mechanism. In J. Pfeifer & Sahotra Sarkar (eds.), The Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopedia. Psychology Press. 469--478.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Carl F. Craver (2005). Beyond Reduction: Mechanisms, Multifield Integration and the Unity of Neuroscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 36 (2):373-395.
  22. Carl F. Craver (2005). Functions and Mechanisms in Contemporary Neuroscience. In Pierre Poirier, Luc Faucher, Eric Racine & E. Ennan (eds.), Des Neurones A La Conscience: Neurophilosophie Et Philosophie Des Neurosciences. Bruxelles: De Boeck Universite.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Carl F. Craver & William P. Bechtel, Explaining Top-Down Causation (Away).
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Carl F. Craver & Lindley Darden (2005). Introduction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 36 (2):233-244.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Carl F. Craver (2004). Dissociable Realization and Kind Splitting. Philosophy Of Science 71 (5):960-971.
    It is a common assumption in contemporary cognitive neuroscience that discovering a putative realized kind to be dissociably realized (i.e., to be realized in each instance by two or more distinct realizers) mandates splitting that kind. Here I explore some limits on this inference using two deceptively similar examples: the dissociation of declarative and procedural memory and Ramachandran's argument that the self is an illusion.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Carl F. Craver (2003). The Making of a Memory Mechanism. Journal of the History of Biology 36 (1):153-95.
    Long-Term Potentiation (LTP) is a kind of synaptic plasticity that many contemporary neuroscientists believe is a component in mechanisms of memory. This essay describes the discovery of LTP and the development of the LTP research program. The story begins in the 1950's with the discovery of synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus (a medial temporal lobe structure now associated with memory), and it ends in 1973 with the publication of three papers sketching the future course of the LTP research program. The (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Brandon N. Towl, Jonathan Halvorson & Carl F. Craver (2003). An Elusive Target: A Critical Review of Clark Glymour's the Mind's Arrows. [REVIEW] Philosophical Psychology 16 (1):157 – 164.
    The mind's arrows , by Clark Glymour, combines several of the author's previous essays on causal inference. Glymour deploys causal Bayes nets (CBNs) to provide a descriptive psychological model of human causal inference and a prescriptive model for making inferences in cognitive neuropsychology and the social sciences. Though The mind's arrows is highly original and provocative, its labyrinthine organization and technical style render it inaccessible to the uninitiated. Here we attempt to distill, package and dress some of Glymour's more interesting (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Carl F. Craver (2002). Interlevel Experiments and Multilevel Mechanisms in the Neuroscience of Memory. Philosophy of Science Supplemental Volume 69 (3):S83-S97.
  29. Lindley Darden & Carl Craver (2002). Strategies in the Interfield Discovery of the Mechanism of Protein Synthesis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 33 (1):1-28.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Carl F. Craver (2001). Role Functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy. Philosophy of Science 68 (1):53-74.
    Many areas of science develop by discovering mechanisms and role functions. Cummins' (1975) analysis of role functions-according to which an item's role function is a capacity of that item that appears in an analytic explanation of the capacity of some containing system-captures one important sense of "function" in the biological sciences and elsewhere. Here I synthesize Cummins' account with recent work on mechanisms and causal/mechanical explanation. The synthesis produces an analysis of specifically mechanistic role functions, one that uses the characteristic (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Carl F. Craver & Lindley Darden (2001). Discovering Mechanisms in Neurobiology: The Case of Spatial Memory. In P.K. Machamer, Rick Grush & Peter McLaughlin (eds.), Theory and Method in Neuroscience. Pittsburgh: University of Pitt Press. 112--137.
  32. Peter K. Machamer, Lindley Darden & Carl F. Craver (2000). Thinking About Mechanisms. Philosophy Of Science 67 (1):1-25.
    The concept of mechanism is analyzed in terms of entities and activities, organized such that they are productive of regular changes. Examples show how mechanisms work in neurobiology and molecular biology. Thinking in terms of mechanisms provides a new framework for addressing many traditional philosophical issues: causality, laws, explanation, reduction, and scientific change.
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation