Understanding Cognitive Mechanism

Cognitive Mechanism

Student Name

Institutional Affiliation

Date

Cognitive Mechanism

Introduction

Over the years, the human brain has been fascinating to researchers and laypersons alike. Cognitive science started as an endeavor to understand how the brain works and has to an extent provided an opportunity for individuals to explore various mechanisms underlying the functioning of the brain. Over the years, researchers have been asking questions regarding the methodologies and levels of explanations to pursue this goal. An understanding of the mechanism underlying cognitive processes is critical in explaining how the processes work. This paper demonstrates what it means to understand such a mechanism, the challenges of relying on a verbal description of the mechanism, and how building a functioning brain from the bottom up cannot explain how the brain works.

Implications of a Mechanism

The claim that scientists understand the mechanisms underlying a cognitive phenomenon like memory resonates differently with different schools of thought. However, before delving into the debate, we start by establishing the meaning of a "mechanism" to assist in aligning the different arguments. Glennan (2002) considers a mechanism as a complex system which produces a behaviour through the interaction of the various parts, and where the interactions are characterized by direct and change relative generalizations. Researchers Bechtel & Abrahamsen (2005) build on Glennan’s work and consider a mechanism as a structure performing a function in virtual of its parts, component operations and their organizations. Bechtel & Abrahamsen (2005) further indicate that the orchestrated operation of the mechanism accounts for one or more phenomena. The definitions indicate that mechanisms imply something beyond aggregates of their parts but something active and causal.

A mechanistic account holds that a phenomenon can be explained through the provision of an accurate and sufficient description. In other words, it presents a model of how the hierarchical causal systems, which have different parts manage to produce and sustain the phenomenon. The construction of an explanatory mechanistic model will entail mapping all the constituent models in such a way that the different components of the model point to the constituent parts to demonstrate the organization resulting in casual relations. When investigators examine a mechanism that is responsible for a certain phenomenon, they tend to assume that there should be underlying mechanisms that permit the components of the mechanism to participate in the various activities. In such a case, a mechanism at a lower level of the mechanistic organization will be embedded in a higher-level mechanism which affects how it operates. Since mechanisms are spatiotemporally local, investigators are interested in classifying them into different types and deriving generalizations. The achievement of generality is achieved through abstracting the details of mechanisms and idealizing some of their attributes. Craver & Darden (2013) warn that abstraction leaves out details about the target mechanism, while idealization alters some of its features. As a result, no single general criterion about the abstractions and idealizations in a mechanistic model is acceptable. Instead, their appropriateness is established on a case-by-case basis depending on what a researcher wants to achieve.

The evolution of cognitive functioning since the 1960s has brought about the extensive application of heuristic research using "reverse engineering." Employing reverse engineering in cognitive science entails starting with a complex phenomenon, and then it is demonstrated that a set of capable sub-systems can result in the phenomenon. Through the postulation of the various subsystems, the behavior of the subsystems can be observed. The application of the heuristic in cognitive science, Newell (1980) considered subsystems as collections of very complex computational devices, which can be examined through decomposing complex information-processing tasks into simpler forms. The breakdown of the implementation of the simpler information processes would allow scientists to understand how information processing occurs in different platforms, especially in human brains and computers. In essence, rather than addressing why questions ("Why does X occur?"), mechanistic approaches offer answers for the how-questions ("How does system A, demonstrating capacity Z, operate?"). Mechanism finds a wide application in the philosophy of biology. However, beyond this, some cognitive scientists think that mechanistic models can capture the explanatory practice (Bechtel & Abrahamsen, 2005; Piccinini & Craver, 2011). The researchers propose that, since cognitive science seeks to explain cognitive processes like reasoning, episodic memory and imagery among other processes, which complex human and non-human cognitive systems exhibit, it makes sense to examine the underlying mechanisms.

With the different points of view regarding an understanding of "the mechanism" underlying a cognitive phenomenon, this paper considers the view Lee (2023) proposes. According to Lee (2023), mechanisms are decomposable since the organized components can be identified. This includes the different parts and their mutual relations and the operations the components perform that constitute the mechanism. A mechanistic explanation, Lee (2023) argues, must include an investigation of the spatial properties and temporal properties with other general organizational relations. In this regard, understanding the mechanism behind any phenomena entails discovering how something works by an understanding of the different parts that make it up, such that the various parts of the system are not viewed in isolation, rather as a whole, based on how they interact. Following this proposal, this paper takes the view that if individuals claim to understand the mechanism underlying a cognitive phenomenon like memory, they must demonstrate an understanding not only of the parts constituting memory, but also the relations among the various components of memory brought about by the interaction of the individual parts. While is it possible to identify the various components of memory, without a formulation of how memory works as a whole would fall short of an understanding of the same.

The Shortcomings of Verbal Descriptions

While researchers have done commendable work in understanding the underlying mechanisms of cognitive phenomena, most of their verbal descriptions fall short of the intended goal in several ways. A verbal description of a cognitive phenomenon like memory demonstrates that three