J. P. Gamboa

Neuroscience lacks a standard conceptual framework for interpreting and reporting experimental results. Consequently, the neuroscience literature is full of heterogeneous “filler verbs” (‘underlying’, ‘supporting’, etc.) linking neural activity with cognition. In this paper, I focus on the possibility that mental phenomena are “realized” in the brain. I begin by examining how philosophers have explicated the realization relation, drawing out two conditions that are common across accounts: metaphysical sufficiency and synchrony. I then develop a two-pronged argument. At the mesoscale of neural circuits, sufficiency fails. At the macroscale of multi-circuit mechanisms, synchrony fails. There is no empirical evidence of mental processes synchronized with neural mechanisms, and none is forthcoming given actual research practices in neuroscience. A major upshot is that we should not expect the same terminology to be suitable for theorizing about the mind in both philosophy and science.

Scientists and philosophers alike debate whether various systems such as plants and bacteria exercise cognition. One strategy for resolving such debates is to ground claims about nonhuman cognition in evidence from mathematical models of cognitive capacities. In this article, I show that proponents of this strategy face two major challenges: demarcating phenomenological models from process models and overcoming underdetermination by model fit. I argue that even if the demarcation problem is resolved, fitting a process model to behavioral data is, on its own, not strong evidence for any cognitive process, let alone processes shared with humans.

We provide two programmatic frameworks for integrating philosophical research on understanding with complementary work in computer science, psychology, and neuroscience. First, philosophical theories of understanding have consequences about how agents should reason if they are to understand that can then be evaluated empirically by their concordance with findings in scientific studies of reasoning. Second, these studies use a multitude of explanations, and a philosophical theory of understanding is well suited to integrating these explanations in illuminating ways.

In the late 19th century, physiologists such as David Ferrier, Eduard Hitzig, and Hermann Munk argued that cerebral brain functions are localized in discrete structures. By the early 20th century, this became the dominant position. However, another prominent physiologist, Friedrich Goltz, rejected theories of cerebral localization and argued against these physiologists until his death in 1902. I argue in this paper that previous historical accounts have failed to comprehend why Goltz rejected cerebral localization. I show that Goltz adhered to a falsificationist methodology, and I reconstruct how he designed his experiments and weighted different kinds of evidence. I then draw on the exploratory experimentation literature from recent philosophy of science to trace one root of the debate to differences in how the German localizers designed their experiments and reasoned about evidence. While Goltz designed his experiments to test hypotheses about the functions of predetermined cerebral structures, the localizers explored new functions and structures in the process of constructing new theories. I argue that the localizers relied on untested background conjectures to justify their inferences about functional organization. These background conjectures collapsed a distinction between phenomena they produced direct evidence for (localized symptoms) and what they reached conclusions about (localized functions).