Comments on: The Philosophy and Neuroscience Movement http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/ Pete Mandik's Intermittently Neurophilosophical Weblog Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:48:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: synaptic spazism http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-199478 synaptic spazism Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:54:23 +0000 http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/#comment-199478 Here's a thought provokeing one. The psychoactive drugs that ancient cultures use to develope their beliefs would be the same drugs that opened the doors for our understanding of the neurological working of the mind such as when serotonin and dopamine are released and what their effects on human perception as well as mood. Coincident, I think not. Here’s a thought provokeing one. The psychoactive drugs that ancient cultures use to develope their beliefs would be the same drugs that opened the doors for our understanding of the neurological working of the mind such as when serotonin and dopamine are released and what their effects on human perception as well as mood. Coincident, I think not.

]]> By: Anibal http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-66369 Anibal Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:39:43 +0000 http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/#comment-66369 Thanks, Pete, Mr. Brook (i really meant to say Patricia sorry for the mistype), Mo, and JokeR (although, i welcome the neurooverload). With some corrections and improvements in my english and a lot of hard work i would try to submitte a research statement in neurohisotry of philosophy "of" conciousness to Oxford graduate admisisons. Anyone knows which college Patricia attended? Thanks, Pete, Mr. Brook (i really meant to say Patricia sorry for the mistype), Mo, and JokeR (although, i welcome the neurooverload).
With some corrections and improvements in my english and a lot of hard work i would try to submitte a research statement in neurohisotry of philosophy “of” conciousness to Oxford graduate admisisons.
Anyone knows which college Patricia attended?

]]> By: Pete Mandik http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-65702 Pete Mandik Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:52:25 +0000 http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/#comment-65702 Thanks, Mo! Thanks, Mo!

]]> By: Mo http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-65645 Mo Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:54:54 +0000 http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/#comment-65645 Fantastic article - I've just <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/10/the_history_of_neurophilosophy.php" rel="nofollow">mentioned it</a>. I need to get in on the movement, or change the name of my blog. Anibal - <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/history_of_neuroscience/" rel="nofollow">neurohistory</a> is definitely here to stay. Fantastic article - I’ve just mentioned it. I need to get in on the movement, or change the name of my blog.

Anibal - neurohistory is definitely here to stay.

]]> By: Andrew Brook http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-65511 Andrew Brook Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:21:00 +0000 http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/#comment-65511 Anibal, I'd say that any topic where the discoveries of neuroscience are relevant and where there are interesting concepual issues still open is a legitimate topic for neurophilosophy. Since that includes pretty much everything do with cognition, knowledge, social relations broadly construed, and consciousness, the scope is vast. The volume our paper is heading is on neuroeconomics! It was Patricia not Paul Churchland who coined the term 'neurophilosophy' (see her 1986 book of the same name), so it is her new paradigm, not his. What is here to stay and what is fad? Check back in 50 and in 100 years. I don't know any other way to know for sure. That said, I share Pete's general thoughts on the issue. Thanks for the interesting comments! Andrew Anibal, I’d say that any topic where the discoveries of neuroscience are relevant and where there are interesting concepual issues still open is a legitimate topic for neurophilosophy. Since that includes pretty much everything do with cognition, knowledge, social relations broadly construed, and consciousness, the scope is vast. The volume our paper is heading is on neuroeconomics!

It was Patricia not Paul Churchland who coined the term ‘neurophilosophy’ (see her 1986 book of the same name), so it is her new paradigm, not his.

What is here to stay and what is fad? Check back in 50 and in 100 years. I don’t know any other way to know for sure. That said, I share Pete’s general thoughts on the issue.

Thanks for the interesting comments!

Andrew

]]> By: Pete Mandik http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-65423 Pete Mandik Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:35:56 +0000 http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/#comment-65423 JoKeR, It ain't neurover til the fat lady neurosings. JoKeR,

It ain’t neurover til the fat lady neurosings.

]]> By: Pete Mandik http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-65422 Pete Mandik Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:34:09 +0000 http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/#comment-65422 Hi Anibal, My thinking about such questions is very Kuhnian: A discipline's survival depends largely on offering a methodology that can be applied by a large number of relatively unintelligent (relative, that is, to pioneers like Einstein) that solve a large number of problems recognized as important to the concerns of the pioneers. A lot of new disciplines have pioneers, but no methodologies for followers to come and utilize to churn out results and/or publications. Within philosophy, doing metaphysics in a way that utilizes a lot of quantified modal logic fits the above description. It might be too early to tell, though, whether doing philosophy in a way that utilizes a lot of neuroscience fits the above. Hi Anibal,

My thinking about such questions is very Kuhnian: A discipline’s survival depends largely on offering a methodology that can be applied by a large number of relatively unintelligent (relative, that is, to pioneers like Einstein) that solve a large number of problems recognized as important to the concerns of the pioneers. A lot of new disciplines have pioneers, but no methodologies for followers to come and utilize to churn out results and/or publications.

Within philosophy, doing metaphysics in a way that utilizes a lot of quantified modal logic fits the above description. It might be too early to tell, though, whether doing philosophy in a way that utilizes a lot of neuroscience fits the above.

]]> By: JoKeR http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-65344 JoKeR Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:27:28 +0000 http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/#comment-65344 I fully share Anibal's concerns. We went from little or no neuroscience to total overload - or should I say, 'neuroverload'? In fact I can't put it better than Geekipedia - see: http://www.wired.com/culture/geekipedia/magazine/geekipedia/neurologism I fully share Anibal’s concerns. We went from little or no neuroscience to total overload - or should I say, ‘neuroverload’?

In fact I can’t put it better than Geekipedia - see:
http://www.wired.com/culture/geekipedia/magazine/geekipedia/neurologism

]]> By: Anibal http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-65170 Anibal Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:23:01 +0000 http://www.petemandik.com/blog/2007/10/03/the-philosophy-and-neuroscience-movement/#comment-65170 I would like to ask you Pete and Mr Brook as well, what are the legitimate areas of research or sub-disciplines within the philosophy and neuroscience movement. Since the breakthrough achieved by Churchland calling his paradigm "neurophilosophy" in which the old problems of philosophy(self, knowledge, morality...) are seen in the light of the new wisdom of neuroscience, and Dennett leadership to wander beyond the confines of traditional philosophy; many new neuro-hyphenations are spreading. To mention a few: neuroaesthetics, neuropolitics, neuroarchitecture, neurohermeneutics, neurohistory... Which one is here to stay and which one is just a capturing-name or in the best way a weird name? I ask you this because i´m interested in neurohistory of philosophy, specially, the neurohistory of philosophy "of" consciousness, or, how authors from the past anticipate (implicitely or explicitely) many discoveries found by neuroscience later concerning consciousness. I would like to ask you Pete and Mr Brook as well, what are the legitimate areas of research or sub-disciplines within the philosophy and neuroscience movement.

Since the breakthrough achieved by Churchland calling his paradigm “neurophilosophy” in which the old problems of philosophy(self, knowledge, morality…) are seen in the light of the new wisdom of neuroscience, and Dennett leadership to wander beyond the confines of traditional philosophy; many new neuro-hyphenations are spreading. To mention a few: neuroaesthetics, neuropolitics, neuroarchitecture, neurohermeneutics, neurohistory…

Which one is here to stay and which one is just a capturing-name or in the best way a weird name? I ask you this because i´m interested in neurohistory of philosophy, specially, the neurohistory of philosophy “of” consciousness, or, how authors from the past anticipate (implicitely or explicitely) many discoveries found by neuroscience later concerning consciousness.

]]>