CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Embodied and Extended CognitionPhilosophy and History of SciencePhilosophy and Theoretical Science

Minimal model explanations of cognition

Open access
Brancazio, Nick, Meyer, Russell·2023·European Journal for Philosophy of Science
DOI 10.1007/s13194-023-00547-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Active materials are self-propelled non-living entities which, in some circumstances, exhibit a number of cognitively interesting behaviors such as gradient-following, avoiding obstacles, signaling and group coordination. This has led to scientific and philosophical discussion of whether this may make them useful as minimal models of cognition (Hanczyc, 2014; McGivern, 2019). Batterman and Rice (2014) have argued that what makes a minimal model explanatory is that the model is ultimately in the same universality class as the target system, which underpins why it exhibits the same macrobehavior. We appeal to recent research in basal cognition (Lyon et al., 2021) to establish appropriate target systems and essential features of cognition as a target of modeling. Looking at self-propelled oil droplets, a type of active material, we do not find that organization alone indicates that these systems exhibit the essential features of cognition. We then examine the specific behaviors of oil droplets but also fail to find that these demonstrate the essential features of cognition. Without a universality class, Batterman & Rice’s account of the explanatory power of minimal models simply does not apply to cognition. However, we also want to stress that it is not intended to; cognition is not the same type of behavioral phenomena as those found in physics. We then look to the minimal cognition methodology of Beer (1996, 2020a, b) to show how active materials can be explanatorily valuable regardless of their cognitive status because they engage in specific behaviors that have traditionally been expected to involve internal representational dynamics, revealing misconceptions about the cognitive underpinnings of certain, specific behaviors in target systems where such behaviors are cognitive. Further, Beer’s models can also be genuinely explanatory by providing dynamical explanations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13194-023-00547-4

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Active materials such as self-catalyzing oil droplets are not cognitive systems despite imitating type-1 stigmergically coordinated chemotaxis.

    “For its part, the CSA gives a simple reason why these active materials are not cognitive systems despite imitating what looks like type-1 stigmergically coordinated chemotaxis: the lack of requisite type-2 processes to generate normativity of task and salience of environmental variables.”

    From Traces of thinking: a stigmergic approach to 4E cognition (2025) · cites this paper as Brancazio & Meyer, 2023

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 79 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Brancazio, N., & Meyer, R.
Affiliations
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
Corresponding author
Brancazio, Nick
ORCID
Venue
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-08-29
Volume
13
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 1879-4912 (ISSN-L)
  • 1879-4920
DOI
10.1007/s13194-023-00547-4
OpenAlex
W4386252194
Cited by
5
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3
FWCI
0.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • European Journal for Philosophy of Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh) (submittedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Funders
The University of Adelaide
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Keywords
active materials, universality class, basal cognition, representational dynamics, group coordination, obstacle avoidance, signaling, philosophy of explanation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review