Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:38:57.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nature of Dynamical Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Carlos Zednik
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The received view of dynamical explanation is that dynamical cognitive science seeks to provide covering-law explanations of cognitive phenomena. By analyzing three prominent examples of dynamicist research, I show that the received view is misleading: some dynamical explanations are mechanistic explanations and in this way resemble computational and connectionist explanations. Interestingly, these dynamical explanations invoke the mathematical framework of dynamical systems theory to describe mechanisms far more complex and distributed than the ones typically considered by philosophers. Therefore, contemporary dynamicist research reveals the need for a more sophisticated account of mechanistic explanation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 238 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Special thanks for valuable feedback during the preparation of this manuscript go to Adele Abrahamsen, Colin Allen, Randy Beer, Tony Chemero, Paul Williams, and four reviewers at Philosophy of Science. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship for the Dynamics of Brain-Body-Environment Systems in Behavior and Cognition at Indiana University.

References

Bechtel, W. 1998. “Representations and Cognitive Explanations: Assessing the Dynamicist Challenge in Cognitive Science.” Cognitive Science 22 (3): 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W.. 2008. Mental Mechanisms: Philosophical Perspectives on Cognitive Neuroscience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W.. 2009. “Explanation: Mechanism, Modularity, and Situated Cognition.” In Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition, ed. Robbins, P. and Aydede, M., 155–70. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W., and Abrahamsen, A.. 2002. Connectionism and the Mind: Parallel Processing, Dynamics, and Evolution in Networks. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W., and Abrahamsen, A.. 2005. “Explanation: A Mechanist Alternative.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36:421–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bechtel, W., and Abrahamsen, A.. 2010. “Dynamic Mechanistic Explanation: Computational Modeling of Circadian Rhythms as an Exemplar for Cognitive Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A, 1:321–33.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W., and Richardson, R. C.. 1993. Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beer, R. D. 1995. “Computational and Dynamical Languages for Autonomous Agents.” In Port and van Gelder 1995, 121–47.Google Scholar
Beer, R. D.. 2003. “The Dynamics of Active Categorical Perception in an Evolved Model Agent.” Adaptive Behavior 11 (4): 209–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. New York: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemero, A. 2009. Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemero, A., and Silberstein, M.. 2008. “After the Philosophy of Mind: Replacing Scholasticism with Science.” Philosophy of Science 75:1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. M. 1996. The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 1997. Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Back Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A.. 2008. Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, C. 2006. “When Mechanistic Models Explain.” Synthese 153:355–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, C.. 2007. Explaining the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, C.. 2009. “Mechanisms and Natural Kinds.” Philosophical Psychology 22 (5): 575–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. 1983. The Nature of Psychological Explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, R.. 2000. “‘How Does It Work?’ versus ‘What Are the Laws?’: Two Conceptions of Psychological Explanation.” In Explanation and Cognition, ed. Keil, F. and Wilson, R., 117–44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dietrich, E., and Markman, A.. 2001. “Dynamical Description versus Dynamical Modeling: Reply to Chemero.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 (8): 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliasmith, C. 1996. “The Third Contender: A Critical Examination of the Dynamicist Theory of Cognition.” Philosophical Psychology 9 (4): 441–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. 1991. “Distributed Representations, Simple Recurrent Networks, and Grammatical Structure.” Machine Learning 7:195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldbeter, A. 1995. “A Model for Circadian Oscillations in the Drosophila Period Protein (PER).” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 261 (1362): 319–24.Google Scholar
Haken, H., Kelso, J. A. S., and Bunz, H.. 1985. “A Theoretical Model of Phase Transitions in Human Hand Movements.” Biological Cybernetics 51:347–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardin, P. E., Hall, J. C., and Rosbash, M.. 1990. “Feedback of the Drosophila Period Gene Product on Circadian Cycling of Its Messenger RNA Levels.” Nature 343 (6258): 536–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hempel, C., and Oppenheim, P.. 1948. “Studies in the Logic of Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 15 (2): 135–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelso, J. A. S. 1995. Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kirsh, D., and Maglio, P.. 1994. “On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action.” Cognitive Science 18:513–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machamer, P., Darden, L., and Craver, C.. 2000. “Thinking about Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science 67:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, D. 1982. Vision. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Oullier, O., de Guzman, G. C., Jantzen, K. J., Lagarde, J. F., and Kelso, J. A. S.. 2005. “Spontaneous Interpersonal Synchronization.” In European Workshop on Movement Sciences: Mechanics-Physiology-Psychology, ed. Peham, C., Schöllhorn, W. I., and Verwey, W., 34–35. Köln: Sportverlag.Google Scholar
Port, R. 2003. “Meter and Speech.” Journal of Phonetics 31:599–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Port, R., and van Gelder, T. J.. 1995. Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., Smolensky, P., McClelland, J. L., and Hinton, G. E.. 1986. “Schemata and Sequential Thought Processes in PDP Models.” In Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 2, Psychological and Biological Models, ed. Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. E., and the PDP Research Group, 7–57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. 1989. Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, J. P., and Schöner, G.. 2003. “Bridging the Representational Gap in the Dynamic Systems Approach to Development.” Developmental Science 6:392–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strogatz, S. 1994. Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos. Cambridge, MA: Westview.Google Scholar
Thelen, E., Schöner, G., Scheier, C., and Smith, L. B.. 2001. “The Dynamics of Embodiment: A Field Theory of Infant Perservative Reaching.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24:1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, E., and Smith, L. B.. 1994. A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Gelder, T. J. 1995. “What Might Cognition Be, If Not Computation?” Journal of Philosophy 91 (7): 345–81.Google Scholar
van Gelder, T. J.. 1998. “The Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21:1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Gelder, T. J., and Port, R.. 1995. “It's about Time: An Overview of the Dynamical Approach to Cognition.” In Port and van Gelder 1995, 1–44.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, M. 2005. “Questions for the Dynamicist.” Minds and Machines 15:271–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Orden, G. C., Holden, J. G., and Turvey, M. T.. 2003. “Self-Organization of Cognitive Performance.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132:331–50.Google ScholarPubMed
van Rooij, I., Bongers, R., and Haselager, W.. 2002. “A Non-representational Approach to Imagined Action.” Cognitive Science 26:345–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walmsley, J. 2008. “Explanation in Dynamical Cognitive Science.” Minds and Machines 18 (3): 331–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, R., and Ward, R.. 2009. “Representation in Dynamical Agents.” Neural Networks 22:258–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheeler, M. 2005. Reconstructing the Cognitive World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, C., and Bechtel, W.. 2007. “Mechanisms and Psychological Explanation.” In Philosophy of Psychology and Cognitive Science, ed. Thagard, P., 31–79. New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar