Back
 ADR  Vol.2 No.2 , May 2014
The Philosophy and Neuroscience Movement
Abstract: A movement dedicated to applying neuroscience to traditional philosophical problems and using philosophical methods to illuminate issues in neuroscience began about thirty-five years ago. Results in neuroscience have affected how we see traditional areas of philosophical concern such as perception, belief-formation, and consciousness. There is an interesting interaction between some of the distinctive features of neuroscience and important general issues in the philosophy of science. And recent neuroscience has thrown up a few conceptual issues that philosophers are perhaps best trained to deal with. After sketching the history of the movement, we explore the relationships between neuroscience and philosophy and introduce some of the specific issues that have arisen.
Cite this paper: Kenari, M. (2014) The Philosophy and Neuroscience Movement. Art and Design Review, 2, 21-27. doi: 10.4236/adr.2014.22004.
References

[1]   Akins, K. (2011). Of Sensory Systems and the “Aboutness” of Mental States. The Journal of Philosophy, 93, 337-372.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2941125

[2]   Aldrich, C. (2006). Integrating Neuroscience, Psychology, and Evolutionary Biology through a Teleological Conception of Function. Minds and Machines, 6, 481-505.

[3]   Almekhlafi, A. (2004). Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Scientific Research Strategies. NJ: Princeton.

[4]   Barta, J. (2002). Philosophy of Science. London: The Encyclopaedia of Cognitive Science.

[5]   Bickle, J. (2012). Psychoneural Reduction: The New Wave. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 67-90.

[6]   Birch, A. (2008). A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 23-29.

[7]   Bonk, C. J. (2000). Knowledge and Mind. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 30-44.

[8]   Bowman, R. (2008). Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 67-90.

[9]   Cassell, J. (2006). Towards a General Theory of Reduction. Part I: Historical and Scientific Setting. Part II: Identity in Reduction. Part III: Cross-Categorial Reduction. Dialogue, 20, 38-59.

[10]   Churchland, P. M. (2008). The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul. Cambridge MA: Rosenthal.

[11]   Deaney, R. (2001). Explanatory Pluralism and the Co-Evolution of Theories of Science. In W. Bechtel, & P. Mandik (Eds.), The Churchlands and Their Critics (pp. 17-47). Blackwell Publishers.

[12]   Dennett, D. C. (2005). Why You Can’t Make a Computer That Feels Pain. Synthese, 38, 415-456.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00486638

[13]   Dretske, F. (2010). Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 430-444.

[14]   Elwood, J. (2004). Connectionism and the Mind: Parallel Processing, Dynamics, and Evolution in Networks. Oxford.

[15]   Fodor, J. A. (2010). Special Sciences (or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis). Synthese, 28, 97-115.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00485230

[16]   Funk, J. B. (2011). A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structureof Science. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 512-534.

[17]   Goos, M. (2007). The Book of GENESIS. New York: Nature of Mind, Oxford, 235-242

[18]   Grani?, A. (2007). Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 10, 615-678.

[19]   Hayes, B, (2009). What the Frog’s Eye Tells the Frog’s Brain. Proceedings of the IRF, 47, 1940-1951.

[20]   Jumani, N. (2010). Receptive Fields, Binocular Interaction and Functional Architecture in the Cat’s Visual Cortex. Journal of Physiology (London), 195, 215-243.

[21]   Kan, S. (2011). Cooperative Learning Environment with the Web 2.0 Tool E-Portfolios. European Journal of Social Science, 21, 17-27.

[22]   Kazu, I. (2011). An Investigation of Factors Affecting the Use of Educational Technology in Turkish Primary Schools. Education, 131, 510-524.

[23]   Law, N. (2010). Policy Impacts on Pedagogical Practice and ICT Use: An Exploration of the Results from SITES 2006. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 465-477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00378.x

[24]   Leach, J. (2008). Do New Information and Communications Technologies Have a Role to Play in the Achievement of Education for All? British Educational Research Journal, 34, 783-805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411920802041392

[25]   Lehky, S., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2011). Network Model of Shape-from-Shading: Neural Function Arises from Both Receptive and Projective Fields. Nature, 333, 452-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/333452a0

[26]   Luck, L. (2010). Maximizing the Usage of Technology-Enhanced Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics in English Program in the Malaysian Secondary Schools System. Online Submission.

[27]   Maria, K. (2011). Teaching Art Using Technology: The Views of High School Students in Greece. Review of European Studies, 13, 98-109.

[28]   Milner, A., & Goodale, M. (2011). The Visual Brain in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[29]   Van Gelder, T. (2009). Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5, 381-383.

[30]   Weiskrantz, L. (2005). Blindsight: A Case Study and Implication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 
 
Top