Carving the Brain at its Joints

TL;DRAbstract

When neuroscientists explain the biological basis of a phenomenon of interest, they usually try to identify the parts of a system that seem do the relevant job, and propose a model of how those parts interact to produce the phenomenon. This mechanistic framework of explanation is widely used and has been investigated from a philosophical point of view by different authors. In his target article, Michael Anderson poses a challenge to the currently dominant version of mechanistic explanation as advocated, e.g., by Carl Craver. Taking empirical results and explanatory models from studies on retinal starburst amacrine cells as a starting point, Anderson suggests that the current framework for mechanistic explanation should be extended to include a differentiation between systems and mechanisms, which would allow more leeway in understanding processing in the nervous system. Mechanisms can then be seen to provide enabling constraints on the functioning of systems, where the mechanisms do no

Chat with Paper

AI Agents for this Paper