Reductionist and anti-reductionist perspectives on dynamics

Abstract

In this paper reduction and its pragmatics are discussed in the light of the development in Computer Science of languages to describe processes. The design of higher-level description languages within Computer Science has had the aim of allowing for description of the dynamics of processes in the (physical) world on a higher level avoiding all (physical) details of these processes. The higher description levels developed have dramatically increased the complexity of applications that came within reach. The pragmatic attitude of a (scientific) practitioner in this area has become inherently anti-reductionist, but based on well-established reduction relations. The paper discusses how this perspective can be related to reduction in general, and to other domains where description of dynamics plays a main role, in particular, biological and cognitive domains.

A cognitive and neural model for adaptive emotion reading by mirroring preparation states and Hebbian learning

“…In a more detailed manner, Bickle (1998, pp. 205-208), illustrates a similar perspective for the higher level (e.g., folk psychological) in relation to the lower-level (e.g., neurobiological) explanation in the context of Hawkin andKandel's (1984a,1984b) case; see also (Jonker, Treur, and Wijngaards, 2002): 'The abstract processing structure of the two networks is very similar, at least at a coarse-grained level of analysis. The gross causal flow, from sensations through representational states to behavior, is mostly the same.…”

“…Such concepts can be directly used to specify a neural level model. However, in line with (Jonker, Treur, and Wijngaards, 2002), it is still possible to exploit such concepts and relations as discussed in neurological literature in a more abstracted form in a cognitive level model, using more abstract mental states. This is also in line with Bickle (1998, pp.…”

Formal Interpretation and Analysis of Collective Intelligence as Individual Intelligence

“…In [11] it is explained in some detail why in various cases in other areas (such as Computer Science) such an antireductionist strategy often pays off; some of the discussed advantages in terms of insight, transparency and genericity are: additional higher-level ontologies can improve understanding as they may allow simplification of the picture by abstracting from lower-level details; more insight is gained from a conceptually higher-level perspective; analysis of more complex processes is possible; finally, the same concepts have a wider scope of application, thus obtaining unification.…”

Inter-level relations in computer science, biology, and psychology

“…Second, via computer-aided veri cation it can be checked automatically whether the reduction relation preserves the formal semantics of the languages under consideration, as description languages usually are formalized languages. Jonker et al (2002) noticed that different translations of a higher-level language description f may give rise to different lower-level language descriptions y and c, all describing the same process in the real world. Hence, higher-level language descriptions are multiple realizable on lower-level language descriptions.…”

“…The paper by Jonker et al (2002) subsequently focused, with an eye to some hotly debated issues in contemporary philosophy of mind, on interpretation and use of reduction relations in computer science: given reduction relations between a higher-level and a lower-level language, what are we going to do with them? Should we stop speaking of the objects of the reduced higher-level description language and applaud the "ontological simpli cation" the reductions provide us with?…”