"Neuroscience and Philosophy" presents an expanded version of the thought-provoking intellectual exchange on the conceptual presuppositions of cognitive neuroscience that took place at the 2005 meeting of the American Philosophical Association in New York. Maxwell Bennett and Peter Hacker's book "Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience" (2003) is highly critical of the conceptual commitments of cognitive neuroscientists. It aroused widespread interest and was chosen for an "authors and critics" debate at the APA. Daniel ...
Read More
"Neuroscience and Philosophy" presents an expanded version of the thought-provoking intellectual exchange on the conceptual presuppositions of cognitive neuroscience that took place at the 2005 meeting of the American Philosophical Association in New York. Maxwell Bennett and Peter Hacker's book "Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience" (2003) is highly critical of the conceptual commitments of cognitive neuroscientists. It aroused widespread interest and was chosen for an "authors and critics" debate at the APA. Daniel Dennett and John Searle - two leading philosophers who have written extensively on the subject - were chosen to be the critics to whom Bennett and Hacker would respond. In the impassioned debate that ensued, fundamentally different conceptions of philosophical method, cognitive-neuroscientific explanation, and human nature clashed. The themes discussed in this engaging and highly readable confrontation have a wide range. They investigate the nature of consciousness, the bearer and location of psychological attributes, the intelligibility of talk of maps and representations in the brain, the notion of "qualia," the coherence of the notion of an "intentional stance," and the relationships among mind, brain, and body. It is left to the reader, as it was left to the audience of the original debate, to decide which conception is appropriate. In conclusion, Daniel Robinson (Georgetown University) makes clear why this debate is so crucial for the understanding of neuroscientific research.
Read Less
