An argument recently proposed by Chirimuuta (2014) seems to motivate the rejection of the claims that every neurocognitive phenomenon can have a mechanistic explanation and that every neurocognitive explanation is mechanistic. In this paper, I focus on efficient coding models involving the so-called "canonical neural computations" and argue that although they imply some form of pluralism, they are compatible with two mechanistic generalizations: all neurocognitive explanations are (at least in part) mechanistic; and all neurocognitive phenomena that have an explanation have (at least) a purely mechanistic explanation.
How to Cite
pluralism, mechanism, optimality, neural computation, neural coding
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons License.