Search for: All records

ABSTRACT Although the brain is often characterized as a complex system, theoretical and philosophical frameworks often struggle to capture this. For example, mainstream mechanistic accounts model neural systems as fixed and static in ways that fail to capture their dynamic nature and large set of possible behaviors. In this paper, we provide a framework for capturing a common type of complex system in neuroscience, which involves two main aspects: (i) constraints on the system and (ii) the system's possibility space of available outcomes. Our analysis merges neuroscience examples with recent work in the philosophy of science to suggest that the possibility space concept involves two essential types of constraints, which we call hard and soft constraints. Our analysis focuses on a domain‐general notion of possibility space that is present in manifold frameworks and representations, phase space diagrams in dynamical systems theory, and paradigmatic cases, such as Waddington's epigenetic landscape model. After building the framework with such cases, we apply it to three main examples in neuroscience: adaptability, resilience, and phenomenology. We explore how this framework supports a philosophical toolkit for neuroscience and how it helps advance recent work in the philosophy of science on constraints, scientific explanations, and impossibility explanations. We show how fruitful connections between neuroscience and philosophy can support conceptual clarity, theoretical advances, and the identification of similar systems across different domains in neuroscience. 

Abstract This paper examines constraints and their role in scientific explanation. Common views in the philosophical literature suggest that constraints are non-causal and that they provide non-causal explanations. While much of this work focuses on examples from physics, this paper explores constraints from other fields, including neuroscience, physiology, and the social sciences. I argue that these cases involve constraints that are causal and that provide a unique type of causal explanation. This paper clarifies what it means for a factor to be a constraint, when such constraints are causal, and how they figure in scientific explanation. 

This paper provides an analysis of explanatory constraints and their role in scientific explanation. This analysis clarifies main characteristics of explanatory constraints, ways in which they differ from “standard” explanatory factors, and the unique roles they play in scientific explanation. While current philosophical work appreciates two main types of explanatory constraints, this paper suggests a new taxonomy: law-based constraints, mathematical constraints, and causal constraints. This classification helps capture unique features of constraint types, the different roles they play in explanation, and it includes causal constraints, which are often overlooked in this literature. 

According to mainstream philosophical views causal explanation in biology and neuroscience is mechanistic. As the term ‘mechanism’ gets regular use in these fields it is unsurprising that philosophers considerit important to scientific explanation. What is surprisingis that they consider it the only causal term of importance. This paper provides an analysis of a new causal concept—it examines the cascade concept in science and the causal structure it refers to. I argue that this conceptis importantly different from the notion of mechanism and that this difference matters for our understanding of causation and explanation in science. 

This entry discusses some accounts of causal explanation developed after approximately 1990. Our focus in this entry is on the following three accounts – Section 1 those that focus on mechanisms and mechanistic explanations, Section 2 the kairetic account of explanation, and Section 3 interventionist accounts of causal explanation. All of these have as their target explanations of why or perhaps how some phenomenon occurs (in contrast to, say, explanations of what something is, which is generally taken to be non-causal) and they attempt to capture causal explanations that aim at such explananda. Section 4 then takes up some recent proposals having to do with how causal explanations may differ in explanatory depth or goodness. Section 5 discusses some issues having to do with what is distinctive about causal (as opposed to non-causal) explanations. 

This paper explores a distinction among causal relationships that has yet to receive attention in the philosophical literature, namely, whether causal relationships are reversible or irreversible. We provide an analysis of this distinction and show how it has important implications for causal inference and modeling. This work also clarifies how various familiar puzzles involving preemption and over-determination play out differently depending on whether the causation involved is reversible. 

This paper examines tracer techniques in neuroscience, which are used to identify neural connections in the brain and nervous system. These connections capture a type of “structural connectivity” that is expected to inform our understanding of the functional nature of these tissues (Sporns in Scholarpedia, 2007). This is due to the fact that neural connectivity constrains the flow of signal propagation, which is a type of causal process in neurons. This work explores how tracers are used to identify causal information, what standards they are expected to meet, the forms of causal information they provide, and how an analysis of these techniques contributes to the philosophical literature, in particular, the literature on mark transmission and mechanistic accounts of causation.