Skip to main content

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

11. Large-Scale Simulations of the Brain: Is There a “Right” Level of Detail?

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

A number of research projects have recently taken up the challenge of formulating large-scale models of brain mechanisms at unprecedented levels of detail. These research enterprises have raised lively debates in the press and in the scientific and philosophical literature, some of them revolving around the question whether the incorporation of so many details in a theoretical model and in a computer simulations of it is really needed for the model to be explanatory. Is there a “right” level of detail? In this article I analyse the claim, made by two leading neuroscientists, according to which the content of the why-question addressed and the amount of computational resources available constrains the choice of the most appropriate level of detail in brain modelling. Based on the recent philosophical literature on (neuro)scientific explanation, I distinguish between two kinds of details, called here mechanistic decomposition and property details, and argue that the nature of the why-question provides only partial constraints to the choice of the most appropriate level of detail under the two interpretations of the term considered here.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
Mechanisms are often said to be more or less “simple” (or “complex”) in the cognitive science and neuroscience literature depending on the number of their components and on the number and nature of the connections among the components. The adjectives “simple” and “complex” are also often used to qualify behaviours, a complex behaviour being one which is relatively difficult to predict without computational instruments. Providing a precise definition of these terms is out of the scope of this article: here they will be used in the common-sense interpretation sketched here, just for the purpose of introducing the subject of the paper. In the following pages they will be abandoned, and mechanisms will be said to be more or less detailed according to a more precisely defined notion of “level of detail”.
 
3
Several accounts of the formal semantics of why-questions can be found in the philosophical literature, most notably in (Bromberger 1966; Van Fraassen 1980; Hintikka and Halonen 1995). In what follows, I assume that the distinction between same-level and inter-level questions made here is compatible with all these accounts. Examples of why-questions are provided below in the text.
 
4
This argument is to be refined based on a formal account of the notion of “mechanistic decomposition level”, which is out of the scope of this paper. Note that why-questions can be classified as same-level or inter-level only with respect to a particular mechanistic decomposition hierarchy. No why-question is “intrinsically” same-level or inter-level.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Ananthanarayanan, R., S.K. Esser, H.D. Simon, and D.S. Modha. 2009. The cat is out of the bag: Cortical simulations with 109 neurons, 1013 synapses. In High performance computing networking, storage and analysis, proceedings of the conference on, (c), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/1654059.1654124.CrossRef Ananthanarayanan, R., S.K. Esser, H.D. Simon, and D.S. Modha. 2009. The cat is out of the bag: Cortical simulations with 109 neurons, 1013 synapses. In High performance computing networking, storage and analysis, proceedings of the conference on, (c), 1–12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​1654059.​1654124.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Braitenberg, V. 1986. Vehicles. Experiments in synthetic psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Braitenberg, V. 1986. Vehicles. Experiments in synthetic psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Bromberger, S. 1966. Why-questions. In Mind and Cosmos: Essays in contemporary science and philosophy, ed. R. Colodny, 68–111. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Bromberger, S. 1966. Why-questions. In Mind and Cosmos: Essays in contemporary science and philosophy, ed. R. Colodny, 68–111. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Craver, C.F. 2002. Interlevel experiments and multilevel mechanisms in the neuroscience of memory. Philosophy of Science 69: September), 83–September), 97.CrossRef Craver, C.F. 2002. Interlevel experiments and multilevel mechanisms in the neuroscience of memory. Philosophy of Science 69: September), 83–September), 97.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Craver, C. 2007. Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. New York: Clarendon Press.CrossRef Craver, C. 2007. Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. New York: Clarendon Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Cummins, R. 1975. Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy 72 (20): 741–765.CrossRef Cummins, R. 1975. Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy 72 (20): 741–765.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Grey Walter, W. 1950. An imitation of life. Scientific American 182 (5): 42–45.CrossRef Grey Walter, W. 1950. An imitation of life. Scientific American 182 (5): 42–45.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hintikka, J., and I. Halonen. 1995. Semantics and pragmatics for why-questions. Journal of Philosophy 92 (12): 636–657.MathSciNetCrossRef Hintikka, J., and I. Halonen. 1995. Semantics and pragmatics for why-questions. Journal of Philosophy 92 (12): 636–657.MathSciNetCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Pfeifer, R., and J. Bongard. 2006. How the body shapes the way we think. A new view of intelligence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRef Pfeifer, R., and J. Bongard. 2006. How the body shapes the way we think. A new view of intelligence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Pfeifer, R., and C. Scheier. 1999. Understanding Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pfeifer, R., and C. Scheier. 1999. Understanding Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Piccinini, G., and C. Craver. 2011. Integrating psychology and neuroscience: Functional analyses as mechanism sketches. Synthese 183: 283–311.CrossRef Piccinini, G., and C. Craver. 2011. Integrating psychology and neuroscience: Functional analyses as mechanism sketches. Synthese 183: 283–311.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Simon, H.A. 1996. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Simon, H.A. 1996. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Van Fraassen, B. 1980. The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRef Van Fraassen, B. 1980. The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Woodward, J. 2002. What is a mechanism? A counterfactual account. Philosophy of Science 69: S366–S377 JOUR.CrossRef Woodward, J. 2002. What is a mechanism? A counterfactual account. Philosophy of Science 69: S366–S377 JOUR.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Large-Scale Simulations of the Brain: Is There a “Right” Level of Detail?
verfasst von
Edoardo Datteri
Copyright-Jahr
2019
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01800-9_11