Computational neuroscience and localized neural function

Synthese 193 (12):3741-3762 (2016)

Daniel C. Burnston
Tulane University
In this paper I criticize a view of functional localization in neuroscience, which I call “computational absolutism”. “Absolutism” in general is the view that each part of the brain should be given a single, univocal function ascription. Traditional varieties of absolutism posit that each part of the brain processes a particular type of information and/or performs a specific task. These function attributions are currently beset by physiological evidence which seems to suggest that brain areas are multifunctional—that they process distinct information and perform different tasks depending on context. Many theorists take this contextual variation as inimical to successful localization, and claim that we can avoid it by changing our functional descriptions to computational descriptions. The idea is that we can have highly generalizable and predictive functional theories if we can discover a single computation performed by each area regardless of the specific context in which it operates. I argue, drawing on computational models of perceptual area MT, that this computational version of absolutism fails to come through on its promises. In MT, the modeling field has not produced a univocal computational description, but instead a plurality of models analyzing different aspects of MT function. Moreover, CA cannot appeal to theoretical unification to solve this problem, since highly general models, on their own, neither explain nor predict what MT does in any particular context. I close by offering a perspective on neural modeling inspired by Nancy Cartwright’s and Margaret Morrison’s views of modeling in the physical sciences.
Keywords Absolutism  Computational neuroscience  Explanation  Functional localization  Models  Perceptual neuroscience
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-016-1099-8
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 40,000
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Neural Representations Observed.Eric Thomson & Gualtiero Piccinini - 2018 - Minds and Machines 28 (1):191-235.
The Search of “Canonical” Explanations for the Cerebral Cortex.Alessio Plebe - 2018 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 40 (3):40.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Semantic Challenge to Computational Neuroscience.Rick Grush - 2001 - In Peter K. Machamer, Peter McLaughlin & Rick Grush (eds.), Theory and Method in the Neurosciences. University of Pittsburgh Press. pp. 155--172.
Localization and Intrinsic Function.Charles Rathkopf - 2013 - Philosophy of Science 80 (1):1-21.
Functional Integration and the Mind.Jakob Hohwy - 2007 - Synthese 159 (3):315-328.


Added to PP index

Total views
32 ( #246,826 of 2,236,147 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #579,708 of 2,236,147 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature