2004
Volume 111, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0002-5275
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1244

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2019.3.001.FRAN
2019-10-01
2021-09-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C.(2010)Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
  2. Bennett, M. R., & Hacker, P. M. S.(2003)Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  3. Burge, T.(1979)Individualism and the Mental, Midwest Studies In Philosophy4(1), pp. 73-121. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1979.tb00374.x
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Churchland, P. S.(1986)Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind-brain. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
  5. Craver, C. F.(2007)Explaining the Brain. Oxford:OUP. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299317.001.0001
  6. Danziger, K.(1997)Naming the Mind: How psychology found its language. London:SAGE Publications.
  7. Dennett, D. C.(1987)The Intentional Stance. Cambridge:MIT Press.
  8. Fodor, J.(1974)Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis), Synthese28(2), pp. 97-115.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Francken, J. C., & Slors, M.(2014)From commonsense to science, and back: The use of cognitive concepts in neuroscience, Consciousness and Cognition29, pp. 248-258. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.08.019
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Francken, J. C., & Slors, M.(2018)Neuroscience and everyday life: Facing the translation problem, Brain and Cognition120, pp. 67-74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2017.09.004
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gallese, V., & Goldman, A.(1998)Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading, Trends in Cognitive Sciences2(12), pp. 493-501. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01262-5
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goleman, D., & Boyatzis, R.(2008)Social intelligence and the biology of leadership social intelligence and the biology of leadership, Harvard Business Review86(9), pp. 74-81. doi:https://doi.org/Article
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hacking, I.(2000)The Social Construction of What?Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press.
  14. Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K.(1983)Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act, Brain106 (Pt 3), pp. 623-642.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lillard, A.(1998)Ethnopsychologies: cultural variations in theories of mind, Psychological Bulletin, 123(1), pp. 3-32.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F.(2004)Thinking about Mechanisms, Philosophy of Science67(1), pp. 1-25. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/392759
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Popper, K. R.(1963)Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York:Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  18. Putnam, H.(1975)The meaning of “meaning”, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy Of Science7, pp. 131-193.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Vrecko, S.(2006)Folk neurology and the remaking of identity, Molecular Interventions6(6), pp. 300-303. doi:https://doi.org/10.1124/mi.6.6.2
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2019.3.001.FRAN
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): explanation; interpretation; neurophilosophy; reduction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error