INTEGRATING AND UNIFYING COGNITIVE SCIENCE USING MECHANISMS

Marcin Miłkowski, IFiS PANNCN SONATA BIS Grant #14/E/HS1/00803

Plan of the talk

Mechanistic integration, Craver and Darden style

Mechanistic integration as constraint satisfaction

Failures of integration: mirror neurons and the gestural account of evolution of language

Mechanistic integration

The mechanistic account of explanation is offered usually for special sciences such as biology, cognitive science, or social sciences.

Constitutive explanation of a phenomenon: elucidation of the phenomenon as arising from the interaction of orchestrated entities and operations of the mechanism.

Craver & Darden (2013): three kinds of integration Simple integration: integration of

multiple mechanisms at the same level of (mechanistic) organization

Craver & Darden (2013): three kinds of integration Inter-level integration: integrating

multiple mechanisms at different levels of organization

Craver & Darden (2013): three kinds of integration Inter-temporal integration: a

mechanism is put into context of another mechanism working on different time scales

Model integration as constraint satisfaction Danks (2014): integrate theories via

constraints E.g., truth constraint = both theories

should be true at the same time Apply to mechanism:

Entity and process constraint = multiple models represent the same entities and processes

One can account for simple kinds of integration this way (as analyzed by Craver and Darden)

Descriptive adequacy

This account is descriptively adequate for complex models.

Two examples: Hippocampus and memory (Craver

2003, 2007) Mirror neurons – no robust entities and

processes

Hippocampus and memory Long-Term Potentiation (LTP) is

now believed to be a process of synaptic plasticity involved in mechanisms of memory.

1973: mechanistic link between LTP and the hippocampus was formulated → an abstract framework for

multifield research program

Hippocampus is discovered to have features required by LTP Intermediate level in mechanism of

memory, between synaptic plasticity and psychological features of memory

Hippocampus and memory

“The findings in … varied fields and from these different perspectives added their own constraints on the mechanism of LTP. Different perspectives could explore, for example, different components of the mechanism, different properties of those components, different activities in which those components engage or different forms of organization among them” (Craver, 2003, p. 187)

Failure of integration:mirror neurons vs. language M. A. Arbib (2005, 2012):

imitation is a required step in language evolution, and it requires mirror neurons Note: Arbib’s view that

language evolved from gestural communication goes beyond mere mirror neurons and does not really require them (no mention of MNS in Fay, Arbib & Garrod 2013)

Mirror neurons Mirror neurons are responsible

for action understanding is backed up mostly by direct recordings of neuronal activity in macaque brains, mostly in area F5 (Rizzolatti and Craighero 2004; Kilner and Lemon 2013).

But: lesion of the MNS does not inhibit action understanding (Hickok 2014)

Some fMRI studies incompatible (Lingnau, Gesierich, and Caramazza 2009)

Mirror neurons & language

Hickok (2014): it is not controversial that humans have the ability to understand actions and to imitate

But there is scarce evidence for MNS in humans, and Broca area (homologue of F5 in macaque monkeys) does not seem to have properties of mirror neurons

Hence: there are no interlevel constraints whatsoever; MNS is not essentially integrated in language understanding.

Conclusions

Mechanistic integration can be thought of naturally in terms of constraints, such as entity / process constraints.

Both successful integration and the lack of integration are linked to stronger or weaker constraints on multiple models of mechanisms.

Thank you!

For more, see https://pan-pl.academia.edu/MarcinMi%C5%82kowski

November, 7th- 11th, 2015