Abstraction & Idealization: AI's Plato Problem [Mazviita Chirimuuta]

What It Covers

Philosopher Mazviita Chirimuuta examines how scientific abstraction and idealization shape neuroscience and AI research. She challenges computational theories of mind, argues biological cognition cannot be separated from living tissue, and presents haptic realism as an alternative to spectator theories of knowledge that assume mathematical representations reveal underlying universal truths.

Key Questions Answered

• •Abstraction versus Idealization: Abstraction removes known details from models like ignoring friction in physics problems, while idealization attributes false properties such as infinite populations in genetics. Both create cleaner mathematical representations than reality allows, but scientists must recognize these are deliberate choices about what counts as signal versus noise, not objective readings of natural patterns.
• •Reflex Theory Failure: Charles Sherrington's reflex arc theory dominated neuroscience for decades despite his admission that simple reflexes were idealizations that probably did not exist. The theory persisted until computational frameworks provided alternative explanations, demonstrating how oversimplification can trap scientists on wrong paths when parsimony becomes dogma rather than heuristic.
• •Haptic Realism Framework: Knowledge emerges through active manipulation and interaction with phenomena, not passive observation. Like touch requires physical engagement, scientific understanding develops through experimental intervention that necessarily changes what is studied. This contrasts with spectator theories assuming scientists can achieve God's eye views by absorbing information neutrally without impacting their subjects.
• •Computational Ontology Problem: Mapping brain dynamics to computational formalisms does not prove brains are computers, since any physical system including rocks or sofas can be mapped to computational structures. Computation itself is mathematical formalism without causal powers. The question becomes what makes brains special rather than assuming computational models reveal cognitive mechanisms.
• •Biological Embodiment Necessity: Neural signaling is biochemically continuous with cellular processes throughout the body, not distinctively cognitive. Brain function operates within severe energy constraints that artificial neural networks do not face, suggesting biological information processing cannot be separated from living tissue metabolism. LLMs lack sensory motor engagement and embodied meaning that grounds human understanding.