Advertisement

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 185–204 | Cite as

Breaking explanatory boundaries: flexible borders and plastic minds

  • Michael D. KirchhoffEmail author
  • Russell Meyer
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we offer reasons to justify the explanatory credentials of dynamical modeling in the context of the metaplasticity thesis, located within a larger grouping of views known as 4E Cognition. Our focus is on showing that dynamicism is consistent with interventionism, and therefore with a difference-making account at the scale of system topologies that makes sui generis explanatory differences to the overall behavior of a cognitive system. In so doing, we provide a general overview of the interventionist approach. We then argue that recent mechanistic attempts at reducing dynamical modeling to a merely descriptive enterprise fail given that the explanatory standard in dynamical modeling can be shown to rest on interventionism. We conclude that dynamical modeling captures features of nested and developmentally plastic cognitive systems that cannot be explained by appeal to underlying mechanisms alone.

Keywords

Metaplasticity Dynamicism Mechanism Intervention Boundaries Extended cognition Material engagement theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Kirchhoff’s work was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project “Minds in Skilled Performance” (DP170102987), a John Templeton Foundation grant “Probabilitizing Consciousness: Implications and New Directions”, and by a John Templeton Foundation Academic Cross-Training Fellowship (ID#60708). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation. Thanks to Lambros Malafouris for inviting us to take part in this special issue and to two anonymous reviewers for insightful comments.

References

  1. Allen, M., & Friston, K. J. (2016). From cognitivism to autopoiesis: Towards a computational framework for the embodied mind. Synthese, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s112 29-016-1288-5.
  2. Ashby, R. (1960). Design for a Brain: The origins of adaptive behavior. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1993). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as scientific research strategies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beer, R. D. (1995). Computational and dynamical languages for autonomous agents. In R. F. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition (pp. 121–147). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, J. (2007). An interventionist approach to causation in psychology. In A. Gopnik & L. J. Schulz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy and computation (pp. 58–66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chemero, A., & Silberstein, M. (2008). After the philosophy of mind: Replacing scholasticism with science. Philosophy of Science, 75(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, A. (2017). How to Knit Your Own Markov Blanket: Resisting the Second Law with Metamorphic Minds. Available online: http://www.x-spect.org/uploads/9/8/1/5/98154170/knittingmarkov8.pdf.
  8. Craver, C. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese, 153, 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craver, C. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic Unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craver, C., & Bechtel, W. (2007). Top-down causation without top-down causes. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 547–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craver, C., and Tabery, J. (2015). Mechanisms in Science. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
  12. Dupré, J. (2013). Living causes. The Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 1, 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Friston, K., & Stephan, K. (2007). Free-energy and the brain. Synthese, 159, 417–458.Google Scholar
  14. Friston, K., & Frith, C. (2015). A duet for one. Consciousness and Cognition, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.12.003.
  15. Griffiths, P. E., & Stotz, K. (2000). How the mind grows: A developmental perspective on the biology of cognition. Synthese, 122, 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics: Non-equilibrium phase transition and self-organization in physics, chemistry and biology. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Hodgkin, A. L., & Huxley, A. F. (1952). A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. Journal of Physiology, 117, 500–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaplan, D. M., & Bechtel, W. (2011). Dynamical models: An alternative or complement to mechanistic explanation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 438–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaplan, D. M., & Craver, C. (2011). The explanatory force of dynamical and mathematical models in neuroscience: A mechanistic perspective. Philosophy of Science, 78(4), 601–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelso, S. (1995). Dynamic patterns. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kirchhoff, M. D. (2012). Extended cognition and fixed properties: Steps to a third-wave version of extended cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11, 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kirchhoff, M. D. (2015). Extended cognition & the causal-constitutive fallacy: In search for a diachronic and dynamical conception of constitution. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 90(2), 320–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirchhoff, M. D. (2016). From mutual manipulation to cognitive extension: Challenges and implications. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-016-9483-x.
  24. Koschmieder, E. L. (1993). Bénard cells and Taylor vortices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20, 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malafouris, L. (2004). The cognitive basis of material engagement: Where brain, body and culture conflate. In E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden, & C. Renfrew (Eds.), Rethinking Mareriality: The engagement of mind with the material world (pp. 53–62). Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.Google Scholar
  28. Malafouris, L. (2010). Metaplasticity and the human becoming: Principles of neuroarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 88, 49–72.Google Scholar
  29. Menzies, P. (2012). The causal structure of mechanisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 796–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Näätänen, R., Lehtokoski, A., Lennes, M., Cheour, M., Huotilainen, M., Livonen, A., et al. (1997). Language-specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature, 385(30), 432–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Palermos, O. S. (2014). Loops, constitution, and cognitive extension. Cognitive Systems Research, 27, 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palermos, O. S. (2016). The dynamics of group cognition. Minds and Machines, 26(4), 409–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rickles, D., Hawe, P., & Shiell, A. (2007). A simple guide to chaos and complexity. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69, 933–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roepstorff, A., Niewohner, J., & Beck, S. (2010). Enculturating brains through patterned practices. Neural Networks, 23, 1051–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rupert, R. D. (2009). Cognitive systems and the extended mind. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Silberstein, M., & Chemero, A. (2013). Constraints on localization and decomposition as explanatory strategies in the biological sciences. Philosophy of Science, 80, 958–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spivey, M. (2007). The continuity of mind. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sporns, O. (2011). Networks of the brain. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Stepp, N., Chemero, A., & Turvey, M. T. (2011). Philosophy for the rest of cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sutton, J. (2010). Exograms and interdisciplinarity: History, the extended mind, and the civilizing process. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 189–225). Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in Life. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Thiese, N. D., & Kafatos, M. (2013). Complementarity in biological systems: a complexity view. Complexity, 18(6), 1–11.Google Scholar
  43. Tronick, E. Z., Als, H., & Adamson, L. (1979). The communicative structure of face-to-face interaction. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before SpHEECh: The beginnings of human communication (pp. 349–372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Varela, F., Thompson E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Varga, S. (2015). Interaction and extended cognition. Synthese, 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0861-7.
  46. Wolpert, D. (1996). The lack of a prior distinctions between learning algorithms. Neural Computation, 8, 1341–1390.Google Scholar
  47. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Woodward, J. (2013). Mechanistic explanation: Its scope and limits. In Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 87(1), 39–65.Google Scholar
  49. Woodward, J., & Hitchcock, C. (2003). Explanatory generalization, part 1: A counterfactual account. Nous, 37, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations