Sometimes, philosophers have relevant things to say about science. Here is two papers by two philosophers of (neuro)science I warmly recommend. The first one, by Michael Anderson, proposes a methodology to understand the contribution of different brain areas to cognitive functions (and to make sense of all these studies that say "area X does Z"):
Anderson, M.L. Massive redeployment, exaptation, and the functional integration of cognitive operations. Synthese, forthcoming.
In the other paper, Chris Eliasmith presents the Engineering Framework (NEF), a simulation methodology.
The massive redeployment hypothesis (MRH) is a theory about the functional topography of the human brain, offering a middle course between strict localization on the one hand, and holism on the other. Central to MRH is the claim that cognitive evolution proceeded in a way analogous to component reuse in software engineering, whereby existing components—originally developed to serve some specific purpose—were used for new purposes and combined to support new capacities, without disrupting their participation in existing programs. If the evolution of cognition was indeed driven by such exaptation, then we should be able to make some specific empirical predictions regarding the resulting functional topography of the brain. This essay discusses three such predictions, and some of the evidence supporting them. Then, using this account as a background, the essay considers the implications of these findings for an account of the functional integration of cognitive operations. For instance, MRH suggests that in order to determine the functional role of a given brain area it is necessary to consider its participation across multiple task categories, and not just focus on one, as has been the typical practice in cognitive neuroscience. This change of methodology will motivate (even perhaps necessitate) the development of a new, domain-neutral vocabulary for characterizing the contribution of individual brain areas to larger functional complexes, and direct particular attention to the question of how these various area roles are integrated and coordinated to result in the observed cognitive effect. Finally, the details of the mix of cognitive functions a given area supports should tell us something interesting not just about the likely computational role of that area, but about the nature of and relations between the cognitive functions themselves. For instance, growing evidence of the role of “motor” areas like M1, SMA and PMC in language processing, and of “language” areas like Broca’s area in motor control, offers the possibility for significantly reconceptualizing the nature both of language and of motor control.
Eliasmith, C. How to build a brain: from function to implementation. Synthese, forthcoming.
To have a fully integrated understanding of neurobiological systems, we must address two fundamental questions: 1. What do brains do (what is their function)? and 2. How do brains do whatever it is that they do (how is that function implemented)? I begin by arguing that these questions are necessarily inter-related. Thus, addressing one without consideration of an answer to the other, as is often done, is a mistake. I then describe what I take to be the best available approach to addressing both questions. Specifically, to address 2, I adopt the Neural Engineering Framework (NEF) of Eliasmith & Anderson [Neural engineering: Computation representation and dynamics in neurobiological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003] which identifies implementational principles for neural models. To address 1, I suggest that adopting statistical modeling methods for perception and action will be functionally sufficient for capturing biological behavior. I show how these two answers will be mutually constraining, since the process of model selection for the statistical method in this approach can be informed by known anatomical and physiological properties of the brain, captured by the NEF. Similarly, the application of the NEF must be informed by functional hypotheses, captured by the statistical modeling approach.
Together, these two papers provides methodologies that contribute to a better understanding of the brain, its functions and its modelling. Check also their homepage for great papers on philosophy of neuroscience.
- Bickle, John and Peter Mandik and Anthony Landreth, "The Philosophy of Neuroscience", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2006 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
- Chris Eliasmith
- Michael Anderson
- Philosophy of neuroscience resources. [highly recommended!!]
- Pete Mandik's Neurophilosophy Resources [highly recommended!!]