Brain and Mind

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 229–242

Decomposing the Mind-Brain: A Long-Term Pursuit

  • William Bechtel


This paper defends cognitive neuroscience's project of developingmechanistic explanations of cognitive processes through decompositionand localization against objections raised by William Uttal inThe New Phrenology. The key issue between Uttal and researcherspursuing cognitive neuroscience is that Uttal bets against thepossibility of decomposing mental operations into component elementaryoperations which are localized in distinct brain regions. The paperargues that it is through advancing and revising what are likely tobe overly simplistic and incorrect decompositions that the goals ofcognitive neuroscience are likely to be achieved.

cognitive neuroscience decomposition localization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bechtel, W., 1994: Levels of description and explanaiton in cognitive science, Minds and Machines 4, 1–25.Google Scholar
  2. Bechtel, W., 2001: Decomposing and localizing vision: An exemplar for cognitive neuroscience, in. W. Bechtel, P. Mandik, J. Mundale and R.S. Stufflebeam (eds), Philosophy and the Nurosciences: A Reader. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 225–249.Google Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W., and McCauley, R.N., 1999: Heuristic identity theory (or back to the future): The mindbody problem against the background of research strategies in Cognitive Neuroscience, in M. Hahn and S. C. Stoness (eds), Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 67–72.Google Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W., and Mundale, J., 1999: Multiple realizability revisited: Linking cognitive and neural states, Philosophy of Science 66, 175–207.Google Scholar
  5. Bechtel, W., and Richardson, R.C., 1993: Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Scientific Research Strategies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  6. Fodor, J.A., 1975: The Language of Thought, Crowell, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Gabrieli, J.D.E., Poldrack, R.A., and Desmond, J.E., 1998: The role of left prefrontal cortex in language and memory, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 95, 906–913.Google Scholar
  8. Hubel, D.H., and Wiesel, T.N., 1962: Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex, Journal of Physiology (London) 160, 106–154.Google Scholar
  9. Hubel, D.H., and Wiesel, T.N., 1968: Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex, Journal of Physiology (London) 195, 215–243.Google Scholar
  10. Kim, J., 1964: Inference, explanation and prediction, Journal of Philosophy 61, 360–368.Google Scholar
  11. Lycan, W.G., 1987: Consciousness, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Machamer, P., Darden, L., and Craver, C., 2000: Thinking about mechanisms, Philosophy of Science 67, 1–25.Google Scholar
  13. McCauley, R.N., and Bechtel, W., 2001: Explanatory pluralism and heuristic identity theory, Theory and Psychology 11(6), 736–760.Google Scholar
  14. Petersen, S.E., and Fiez, J.A., 1993: The processing of single words studied with positron emission tomography, Annual Review of Neuroscience 16, 509–530.Google Scholar
  15. Petersen, S.E., Fox, P.T., Posner, M.I., Mintun, M., and Raichle, M.E., 1988: Positron emission tomographic studies of the cortical anatomy of single–word prodessing, Nature 331(18), 585–588.Google Scholar
  16. Putnam, H., 1967: Psychological predicates, in W.H. Capitan and D.D. Merrill (eds), Art, Mind and Religion. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  17. Raichle, M.E., Fiez, J.A., Videen, T.O., MacLeod, M.–A. K., Pardo, J.V., Fox, P.T., and Peterson, S.E., 1994: Practice–related changes in human brain functional anatomy during nonmotor learning, Cerebral Cortex 4, 8–26.Google Scholar
  18. van Essen, D.C., and Gallant, J.L., 1994: Neural mechanisms of form and motion processing in the primate visual system, Neuron 13, 1–10.Google Scholar
  19. Van Orden, G.C., Pennington, B.F., and Stone, G.O., 2001: What do double dissociations prove? Inductive methods and isolable systems, Cognitive Science 25, 111–172.Google Scholar
  20. Wimsatt, W.C., 1975: Reductionism, levels of organization, and the mind–body problem, in G. Globus, G. Maxwell and I. Savodnik (eds), Brain and Consciousness, Plenum, New York, pp. 205–267.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Bechtel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations