Psychological Capacities and Neurobiological Activities--论文代写范文精选

心理能力,将引用具体的能力，定义和解释了认知心理学的领域内的知识。一般来说,心理能力是指一个特定的能力,可以从很多角度来解释，例如神经生物学和认知科学。下面的这篇essay代写范文将进行说明。

Abstract 
This paper addresses the relationship between psychological capacities, as they are understood within cognitive psychology, and neurobiological activities. First, Lycan’s (1987) account of this relationship is examined and certain problems with his account are explained. According to Lycan, psychological capacities occupy a higher level than neurobiological activities in a hierarchy of levels of nature, and psychological entities can be decomposed into neurobiological ones. In the second half of this paper, an alternative account is laid out. This new account uses levels of organization and levels of explanation to create a two-dimensional model. Psychological capacities occupy a high level of explanation relative to the cellular and molecular levels of organization. Consequently, according to this model, psychological capacities are a particular way of describing the activities that occur at the cellular and molecular levels of organization.

Introduction 
This paper proposes a model for understanding the relationship between psychological capacities and neurobiological activities. Here psychological capacities, or just the psychological, will refer specifically to the capacities that are defined and explained within the domain of cognitive psychology. Typically, psychological capacity refers to a certain class of abilities that can be addressed from a number of perspectives besides cognitive psychology, for example, from within neurobiology or cognitive science. In this paper, however, psychological capacity will only refer to capacities understood in psychological terms (i.e., described in psychological language). And neurobiological activities will refer to the processes—and the entities that participate in those processes—that occur within the brain. 

Herein I am not addressing whether psychology is autonomous from neurobiology or whether psychology can be reduced to neurobiology. These are issues that concern the ultimate status of the science, psychology. The topic in this paper is the relationship between psychological things and neurobiological things, and I begin by assuming that they are related. The question then is, how can each be understood such that it is explicitly consistent with the other? The answer to this question will indicate how they are related. 1 The standard way of addressing this problem is to say that the relationship between psychological capacities and neurobiological activities is similar to the relationship that exists between the entities described in chemistry and the entities that belong to physics. In the latter case, to put it simply, physics is more basic than chemistry, and the entities that belong to the domain of chemistry are composed of the entities found in physics. 

Lycan has developed a detailed account of the relationship between psychological capacities and neurobiological acitivites that utilizes this chemistry-physics model and the hierarchical organization that it depends on (1987, see also 1981, 1991). According to his account each psychological capacity can be decomposed into component parts. Each of these components can then be similarly decomposed, and if the process is continued, the decomposition will eventually yield neurobiological and neurochemical entities—and still lower level entities if it is further continued.1 Lycan is correct that the hierarchical organization found in nature has a central role in explaining the relationship between psychological capacities and neurobiological activities. But his account contains certain problems that are a result of locating psychological capacities directly on this hierarchy. As an alternative, I outline a model that utilizes a similar hierarchy, but does not locate psychological capacities (as they are described within cognitive psychology) directly on that hierarchy. An additional set of levels, a hierarchy of levels of explanation, is needed to correctly situate the psychological with respect to the neurobiological.

Conclusion
The goal in this paper has been to outline an alternative model for understanding the relationship between psychological capacities and neurobiological activities. Several as- 17 pects of this model have been explained rather quickly. A more complete account should include a fuller discussion of the nature of psychological capacities, as well as a further defense of the claim that it is the activities at the cellular level of organization that primarily carry out psychological capacities. Nevertheless, what has been put forward here is a useful alternative to an account (such as Lycan’s) that locates psychological capacities and neurobiological activities on a single hierarchy of levels. Based on this new model, it is clear that the psychological is not a part of nature in the way that Lycan suggests: the psychological is not one of the many types of things that occupy the various levels of organization. 

This model also indicates that the relationship between the psychological and the neurobiological is not analogous to the relationship between chemical entities and processes and those of basic physics. Instead of having a composition relationship, psychological capacities are only a certain type of description of neurobiological processes. This is a type of description that is useful and has been widely adopted. But because it is only a certain type of description, the psychological is not separable from the neurobiological in the same way as the chemical is separable from basic physics.（essay代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。（essay代写)
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)