Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte - Volume 111, Issue 3, 2019

The New Neurophilosophy: An Introduction to the ANTW special issue

Contemporary neurophilosophy is more pragmatic than the early neurophilosophy of the 1980’s. It features two implicit ideas: First, commonsense cognitive concepts (CCC’s) like ‘free will’, ‘thoughts’, ‘consciousness’, ‘attention’ and ‘self’, belong to a variety of disciplines and cannot be appropriated by either philosophy or cognitive neuroscience. Second, the description of biological processes in the brain and the description of behavioral processes by CCC’s are so far removed from each other that a simple reduction, or even a relation of implementation between them, is implausible. What is needed instead, is a relation of interpretation: which cognitive concepts should be used to describe specific brain processes is not fixed in advance but the outcome of an ongoing negotiation between common sense practice, philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. All articles in this special issue shed light on these two key ideas that characterize a new neurophilosophy.

How fat is the I? Neuroscience and the elusive self

This article explores the concept of self in relation to neuroscience. Four options are discussed on the basis of a key representative. The first is the dualist position where the non-material self controls its brain, as defended by Eccles. Next comes the option of the self as a relatively or completely powerless entity within the brain, as exemplified by Libet’s experiments on free will. The third option is the identity of self and brain, as argued by Dennett. The last option is the identity of self and body, and here Gallagher is the representative. It is shown that no monist position is completely consistently defended. In the conclusion, four factors are identified that hinder a simple and consistent monist conceptualisation of the self in the context of neuroscience.

Neuroscience and the Illusion of Free Will

Currently, few neuroscientists and philosophers still defend the claim that neuroscience has shown the brain ‘decides’ what we do and that free will is an illusion. This does not imply, however, that this kind of neuroscientific research could not say anything about the existence of free will. Neuroscience can offer insights in the unconscious causes and underlying processes of our actions and, because of this, could perhaps show whether we act out of free will or not. In this paper I will argue that in this regard the possibilities of neuroscientific research are limited. I understand free will, in line with Dana Nelkin and Susan Wolf, as the ability to do the right thing for the right reasons. I will show that whether someone acts intentionally, what it is that she is doing, and for which reasons she acts cannot be determined by studying unconscious causes or other unconscious processes related to the action. The action and reason necessarily depend on the perspective of the acting agent. Furthermore, neuroscientific research cannot show us whether the reasons and the actions are right. It could perhaps offer a unique contribution when it comes to the question of whether we are able to the right thing for the right reasons. To what extent it can remains an open question.

The (un)predictable brain

In this paper I give an assessment of the (potential) predictive power of brainreading technology by comparing it to our capacity to predict others’ behavior by means of mental state attribution (mindreading). I identify two constraints that are typically ignored in the literature on brainreading and discuss their implications for the predictive power of brainreading. I conclude that there is little reason to expect that brainreading technology will generate better predictions than everyday mindreading, but that it might offer a good alternative in cases where mindreading underperforms or completely fails.

‘Neurolaw’ in the Netherlands: The justification of the new adolescent penal law from a neurophilosophical perspective

The possible and actual normative influence of neuroscientific research has been discussed in numerous publications. One particular part of that debate covered a number of US Supreme Court decisions since the early 2000s on the constitutionality of death or lifetime sentences for minor offenders. The present paper connects these topics to the new Dutch adolescent penal law which allows to treat adult offenders until the age of 22 years under certain conditions according to the rules for minors. The justification of this law referred to adolescents’ and young adults’ brain development in a unique manner. This paper does not only describe the essential steps of the lawmaking process and the legal justification of the new adolescent penal law, but also analyzes in depth in how far the used neuroscientific findings are able to support the normative conclusions.

Representations in cognitive neuroscience

Explanations in terms of representations are ubiquitous in cognitive neuroscience. In this paper I will show that the question of who is using the representation is of crucial importance, but not often explicitly answered. Two possible users, the scientist and the cognitive system are theoretically strictly distinct, but the distinction is in practice often blurred. It is tempting to jump from ‘representations to the scientist’ to ‘representations to the system’. This step, however, is unwarranted. I will show that representations to the scientist are not in themselves problematic, and can even be useful, but can lead to wrong conclusions. The problems with representations for the system are more fundamental.

The web-model: A new model of explanation for neuroimaging studies

What can neuroimaging tell us about the relation between our brain and our mind? A lot, or so I argue. But neuroscientists should update their model of explanation. Currently, many explanations are (implicitly) based on what I call the ‘mapping model’: a model of explanation which centers on mapping relations between cognition and the brain. I argue that these mappings give us very little information, and that instead, we should focus on finding causal relations. If we take a difference-making approach to causation, we can find manipulation patterns between neural and cognitive phenomena and start constructing satisfying explanations in neuroimaging studies: explanations based on what I call the web-model of explanation. This model of explanation not only contrasts with the mapping model, but is also different from Craver’s constitutive mechanistic model of explanation (2007), which takes the constitutive relation to be the main explanatory relation. Taking the difference-making idea of the importance of manipulation and control seriously, means that sometimes, causal relations are preferred over constitutive relations. If we follow the web-model of explanation, we can do justice to the central role that causation should play in neuroscientific explanations.

Conceptual review as task analysis method

Meta-analysis is a crucial research tool in cognitive neuroscience. For meta-analysis to succeed, it is important that studies that are grouped together investigate the same cognitive process and that studies that investigate different cognitive processes are grouped apart. After all, comparing apples and oranges makes no sense. Studies’ comparability depends on the cognitive tasks employed. Yet current meta-analyses, especially when automated (e.g. Neurosynth, BrainMap), select and group studies based on cognitive labels (e.g. ‘working memory’, ‘self-reflection’). Unfortunately, labels are often applied inconsistently to tasks: different tasks may receive the same cognitive label, leading to a comparison of apples and oranges during meta-analysis; and the same task may receive different labels, leading to meta-analyses that fail to include all apples, so to speak. I propose conceptual review as a method for overcoming this problem. A conceptual review analyzes the conceptual implications of task choices made in a cognitive neuroscience subfield. It applies philosophical ways of uncovering and analyzing implicit assumptions to the methodological choices neuroscientists make. I explicate how this works and discuss several ways in which conceptual review would benefit cognitive neuroscience. Conceptual review could be combined with neuro-informatics to improve the quality of automated versions of meta-analysis and thereby provide an important contribution to progress in cognitive neuroscience.

Translation as philosophical program: An explorative review

What does the concept of translation mean in the expression ‘translational neuroscience’? What are the different steps, or components, in the translation of neuroscientific findings to psychiatry? There are serious concerns about the validity and productivity of the traditional idea of a translational pipeline, starting in the fundamental sciences (chemistry, molecular and cellular biology) and ending in the practice of clinical medicine, including psychiatry. The article defends the thesis that the difficulties in the traditional approach result, at least partially, from insufficient reflection on the philosophical premises upon which the concept of translation is based. The linear pipeline model is strongly determined by the traditional biomedical approach to disease. The translation crisis signifies some of the limitations of this approach, especially in the realm of clinical practice and patient experience. The biomedical model suggests that illness manifestations should be conceived as causally determined expressions of an underlying biological derailment or dysfunction. This model lacks the language and conceptual tools to address the role of contextual and person-bound factors in the manifestation of illness. It is only recently that personalized and context-sensitive approaches to psychopathology have gained scientific attention. In the wake of this conceptual and practical reform, network-like approaches to translation have emerged. These network approaches are based on a different conception of transdisciplinarity. They address all stakeholders, by asking them what kind of translation they need. Stakeholders are not only scientists and clinicians, but also patient- and family support groups; and parties that are responsible for the institutional embedding, the financial and logistic infrastructure, and the legal frameworks that support psychiatric care. It is the interaction between science (as producer of knowledge) and the contexts that are supposed to benefit from this knowledge, that should be put at the centre of conceptual reflection. The degree and fruitfulness of this interaction will be decisive for the future of both psychiatry and clinical neuroscience. Philosophy can play an important role in this interaction, by making explicit underlying logical and practical tensions and ambiguities in this interaction.