Abstract:Biological systems differ from the inanimate world in their behaviors ranging from simple movements to coordinated purposeful actions by large groups of muscles, to perception of the world based on signals of different modalities, to cognitive acts, and to the role of self-imposed constraints such as laws of ethics. Respectively, depending on the behavior of interest, studies of biological objects based on laws of nature (physics) have to deal with different salient sets of variables and parameters. Understanding is a high-level concept, and its analysis has been linked to other high-level concepts such as “mental model” and “meaning”. Attempts to analyze understanding based on laws of nature are an example of the top-down approach. Studies of the neural control of movements represent an opposite, bottom-up approach, which starts at the interface with classical physics of the inanimate world and operates with traditional concepts such as forces, coordinates, etc. There are common features shared by the two approaches. In particular, both assume organizations of large groups of elements into task-specific groups, which can be described with only a handful of salient variables. Both assume optimality criteria that allow the emergence of families of solutions to typical tasks. Both assume predictive processes reflected in anticipatory adjustments to actions (motor and non-motor). Both recognize the importance of generating dynamically stable solutions. The recent progress in studies of the neural control of movements has led to a theory of hierarchical control with spatial referent coordinates for the effectors. This theory, in combination with the uncontrolled manifold hypothesis, allows quantifying the stability of actions with respect to salient variables. This approach has been used in the analysis of motor learning, changes in movements with typical and atypical development and with aging, and impaired actions by patients with various neurological disorders. It has been developed to address issues of kinesthetic perception. There seems to be hope that the two counter-directional approaches will meet and result in a single theoretical scheme encompassing biological phenomena from figuring out the best next move in a chess position to activating motor units appropriate for implementing that move on the chessboard.

The elephant's other legs: What some sciences actually do

Test many theories in many ways

Fantastic beasts and how to study them: rethinking experimental animal behavior

Integrative experiments require a shared theoretical and methodological basis

Replies to commentaries on beyond playing 20 questions with nature

Don't let perfect be the enemy of better: In defense of unparameterized megastudies

Explore your experimental designs and theories before you exploit them!

The irreconcilability of insight

Abstraction in ecology: reductionism and holism as complementary heuristics

Through an animal’s eye: the implications of diverse sensory systems in scientific experimentation

Understanding and Synergy: A Single Concept at Different Levels of Analysis?

Beyond integrative experiment design: Systematic experimentation guided by causal discovery AI

Biological Robots: Perspectives on an Emerging Interdisciplinary Field

Sampling complex social and behavioral phenomena

Emergence Explained

There's Plenty of Room Right Here: Biological Systems as Evolved, Overloaded, Multi-scale Machines

Can We Fully Comprehend the Intricacies of the Physical World? Some Reflections on the Boundaries of Scientific Knowledge from a Historical Perspective

Taking the Elephants' Perspective: Remembering Elephant Behavior, Cognition and Ecology in Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation

A Comparison of Different Cognitive Paradigms Using Simple Animats in a Virtual Laboratory, with Implications to the Notion of Cognition

Animals in education and the structure of science

Integrative design for thought-experiments