Hubbry Logo
NeurophilosophyNeurophilosophyMain
Open search
Neurophilosophy
Community hub
Neurophilosophy
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Neurophilosophy
Neurophilosophy
Neurophilosophy
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Neurophilosophy, or the philosophy of neuroscience, is the interdisciplinary study of neuroscience and philosophy that explores the relevance of neuroscientific studies to the arguments traditionally categorized as philosophy of mind. Recent scientific discourse elucidates the distinction between "neurophilosophy" and "philosophy of neuroscience".

Patricia Churchland

The term was first coined by Patricia Churchland in her book, Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind–Brain, which was published in 1986 by the MIT Press.[1] Churchland was driven by the mind-body problem, which asks a highly-debated question of how the mind, which drives intangible, nonphysical mental processes, is related to the brain, a physical organ. This problem extends to the understanding of other relatively unknown phenomena, such as decision making, learning, consciousness, existence of free will, as well as other related topics. Churchland originally theorized that the physical brain was clearly relevant and, more importantly, necessary to discovering the nonphysical mind and its related mental processes since the only thing that exists is the physical brain. These beliefs were initially met with contention from contemporary philosophers, who typically misinterpreted her argument. Instead of understanding her argument as "necessary," many philosophers often implied that Churchland argued that a neural underpinning was both "necessary" and "sufficient."[2] This line of thought is not without historical context as many classical philosophers, such as Plato, Descartes, and Chalmers, argued that mind and brain have no connection.[3] Contemporary philosophers often argue that the many undiscovered problems in neuroscience will never allow a mechanism into solving cognition. Churchland argues that proponents of this belief do not understand that the field of neuroscience is relatively young and is bound by the unknowns of chemistry and physics. The philosophy of neuroscience attempts to clarify neuroscientific methods and results using the conceptual rigor and methods of philosophy of science.

Specific issues

[edit]

Below is a list of specific issues important to philosophy of neuroscience:

  • "The indirectness of studies of mind and brain"[4]
  • "Computational or representational analysis of brain processing"[5]
  • "Relations between psychological and neuroscientific inquiries"[6]
  • Modularity of mind[5]
  • What constitutes adequate explanation in neuroscience?[7]
  • "Location of cognitive function"[8]
  • The binding problem,[9] and the closely related boundary problem[10]

Indirectness of studies of the mind and brain

[edit]

Many of the methods and techniques central to neuroscientific discovery rely on assumptions that can limit the interpretation of the data. Philosophers of neuroscience have discussed such assumptions in the use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),[11][12] dissociation in cognitive neuropsychology,[13][14] single unit recording,[15] and computational neuroscience.[16] Following are descriptions of many of the current controversies and debates about the methods employed in neuroscience.

fMRI

[edit]

Many fMRI studies rely heavily on the assumption of localization of function[17] (same as functional specialization).

Localization of function means that many cognitive functions can be localized to specific brain regions. An example of functional localization comes from studies of the motor cortex.[18] There seem to be different groups of cells in the motor cortex responsible for controlling different groups of muscles.

Many philosophers of neuroscience criticize fMRI for relying too heavily on this assumption. Michael Anderson points out that subtraction-method fMRI misses a lot of brain information that is important to the cognitive processes.[19] Subtraction fMRI only shows the differences between the task activation and the control activation, but many of the brain areas activated in the control are obviously important for the task as well.

Rejections of fMRI

[edit]

Some philosophers entirely reject any notion of localization of function and thus believe fMRI studies to be profoundly misguided.[20] These philosophers maintain that brain processing acts holistically, that large sections of the brain are involved in processing most cognitive tasks (see holism in neurology and the modularity section below). One way to understand their objection to the idea of localization of function is the radio repairman thought experiment.[21] In this thought experiment, a radio repairman opens up a radio and rips out a tube. The radio begins whistling loudly and the radio repairman declares that he must have ripped out the anti-whistling tube. There is no anti-whistling tube in the radio and the radio repairman has confounded function with effect. This criticism was originally targeted at the logic used by neuropsychological brain lesion experiments, but the criticism is still applicable to neuroimaging. These considerations are similar to Van Orden's and Paap's criticism of circularity in neuroimaging logic.[22] According to them, neuroimagers assume that their theory of cognitive component parcellation is correct and that these components divide cleanly into feed-forward modules. These assumptions are necessary to justify their inference of brain localization. The logic is circular if the researcher then uses the appearance of brain region activation as proof of the correctness of their cognitive theories.

Reverse inference

[edit]

A different problematic methodological assumption within fMRI research is the use of reverse inference.[23] A reverse inference is when the activation of a brain region is used to infer the presence of a given cognitive process. Poldrack points out that the strength of this inference depends critically on the likelihood that a given task employs a given cognitive process and the likelihood of that pattern of brain activation given that cognitive process. In other words, the strength of reverse inference is based upon the selectivity of the task used as well as the selectivity of the brain region activation.

A 2011 article published in the New York Times has been heavily criticized for misusing reverse inference.[24] In the study, participants were shown pictures of their iPhones and the researchers measured activation of the insula. The researchers took insula activation as evidence of feelings of love and concluded that people loved their iPhones. Critics were quick to point out that the insula is not a very selective piece of cortex, and therefore not amenable to reverse inference.

The neuropsychologist Max Coltheart took the problems with reverse inference a step further and challenged neuroimagers to give one instance in which neuroimaging had informed psychological theory.[25] Coltheart takes the burden of proof to be an instance where the brain imaging data is consistent with one theory but inconsistent with another theory.

Roskies maintains that Coltheart's ultra cognitive position makes his challenge unwinnable.[26] Since Coltheart maintains that the implementation of a cognitive state has no bearing on the function of that cognitive state, then it is impossible to find neuroimaging data that will be able to comment on psychological theories in the way Coltheart demands. Neuroimaging data will always be relegated to the lower level of implementation and be unable to selectively determine one or another cognitive theory.

In a 2006 article, Richard Henson suggests that forward inference can be used to infer dissociation of function at the psychological level.[27] He suggests that these kinds of inferences can be made when there is crossing activations between two task types in two brain regions and there is no change in activation in a mutual control region.

Pure insertion

[edit]

One final assumption is the assumption of pure insertion in fMRI.[28] The assumption of pure insertion is the assumption that a single cognitive process can be inserted into another set of cognitive processes without affecting the functioning of the rest. For example, to find the reading comprehension area of the brain, researchers might scan participants while they were presented with a word and while they were presented with a non-word (e.g. "Floob"). If the researchers then infer that the resulting difference in brain pattern represents the regions of the brain involved in reading comprehension, they have assumed that these changes are not reflective of changes in task difficulty or differential recruitment between tasks. The term pure insertion was coined by Donders as a criticism of reaction time methods.

Resting-state functional-connectivity MRI

[edit]

Recently, researchers have begun using a new functional imaging technique called resting-state functional-connectivity MRI.[29] Subjects' brains are scanned while the subject sits idly in the scanner. By looking at the natural fluctuations in the blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) pattern while the subject is at rest, the researchers can see which brain regions co-vary in activation together. Afterward, they can use the patterns of covariance to construct maps of functionally-linked brain areas.

The name "functional-connectivity" is somewhat misleading since the data only indicates co-variation. Still, this is a powerful method for studying large networks throughout the brain.

Methodological issues

[edit]

There are a couple of important methodological issues that need to be addressed. Firstly, there are many different possible brain mappings that could be used to define the brain regions for the network. The results could vary significantly depending on the brain region chosen.

Secondly, what mathematical techniques are best to characterize these brain regions?

The brain regions of interest are somewhat constrained by the size of the voxels. Rs-fcMRI uses voxels that are only a few millimeters cubed, so the brain regions will have to be defined on a larger scale. Two of the statistical methods that are commonly applied to network analysis can work on the single voxel spatial scale, but graph theory methods are extremely sensitive to the way nodes are defined.

Brain regions can be divided according to their cellular architecture, according to their connectivity, or according to physiological measures. Alternatively, one could take a "theory-neutral" approach, and randomly divide the cortex into partitions with an arbitrary size.

As mentioned earlier, there are several approaches to network analysis once the brain regions have been defined. Seed-based analysis begins with an a priori defined seed region and finds all of the regions that are functionally connected to that region. Wig et al. caution that the resulting network structure will not give any information concerning the inter-connectivity of the identified regions or the relations of those regions to regions other than the seed region.

Another approach is to use independent component analysis (ICA) to create spatio-temporal component maps, and the components are sorted into those that carry information of interest and those that are caused by noise. Wigs et al. once again warns that inference of functional brain region communities is difficult under ICA. ICA also has the issue of imposing orthogonality on the data.[30]

Graph theory uses a matrix to characterize covariance between regions, which is then transformed into a network map. The problem with graph theory analysis is that network mapping is heavily influenced by a priori brain region and connectivity (nodes and edges). This places the researcher at risk of cherry-picking regions and connections according to their own preconceived theories. However, graph theory analysis is still considered extremely valuable, as it is the only method that gives pair-wise relationships between nodes.

While ICA may have an advantage in being a fairly principled method, it seems that using both methods will be important to better understanding the network connectivity of the brain. Mumford et al. hoped to avoid these issues and use a principled approach that could determine pair-wise relationships using a statistical technique adopted from analysis of gene co-expression networks.

Dissociation in cognitive neuropsychology

[edit]

Cognitive neuropsychology studies brain damaged patients and uses the patterns of selective impairment in order to make inferences on the underlying cognitive structure. Dissociation between cognitive functions is taken to be evidence that these functions are independent. Theorists have identified several key assumptions that are needed to justify these inferences:[31]

  1. Functional modularity – the mind is organized into functionally separate cognitive modules.
  2. Anatomical modularity – the brain is organized into functionally separate modules. This assumption is very similar to the assumption of functional localization. These assumptions differ from the assumption of functional modularity, because it is possible to have separable cognitive modules that are implemented by diffuse patterns of brain activation.
  3. Universality – The basic organization of functional and anatomical modularity is the same for all normal humans. This assumption is needed if we are to make any claim about functional organization based on dissociation that extrapolates from the instance of a case study to the population.
  4. Transparency / Subtractivity – the mind does not undergo substantial reorganization following brain damage. It is possible to remove one functional module without significantly altering the overall structure of the system. This assumption is necessary in order to justify using brain damaged patients in order to make inferences about the cognitive architecture of healthy people.

There are three principal types of evidence in cognitive neuropsychology: association, single dissociation and double dissociation.[32] Association inferences observe that certain deficits are likely to co-occur. For example, there are many cases who have deficits in both abstract and concrete word comprehension following brain damage. Association studies are considered the weakest form of evidence, because the results could be accounted for by damage to neighboring brain regions and not damage to a single cognitive system.[33] Single Dissociation inferences observe that one cognitive faculty can be spared while another can be damaged following brain damage. This pattern indicates that a) the two tasks employ different cognitive systems b) the two tasks occupy the same system and the damaged task is downstream from the spared task or c) that the spared task requires fewer cognitive resources than the damaged task. The "gold standard" for cognitive neuropsychology is the double dissociation. Double dissociation occurs when brain damage impairs task A in Patient1 but spares task B and brain damage spares task A in Patient 2 but damages task B. It is assumed that one instance of double dissociation is sufficient proof to infer separate cognitive modules in the performance of the tasks.

Many theorists criticize cognitive neuropsychology for its dependence on double dissociations. In one widely cited study, Joula and Plunkett used a model connectionist system to demonstrate that double dissociation behavioral patterns can occur through random lesions of a single module.[34] They created a multilayer connectionist system trained to pronounce words. They repeatedly simulated random destruction of nodes and connections in the system and plotted the resulting performance on a scatter plot. The results showed deficits in irregular noun pronunciation with spared regular verb pronunciation in some cases and deficits in regular verb pronunciation with spared irregular noun pronunciation. These results suggest that a single instance of double dissociation is insufficient to justify inference to multiple systems.[35]

Charter offers a theoretical case in which double dissociation logic can be faulty.[36] If two tasks, task A and task B, use almost all of the same systems but differ by one mutually exclusive module apiece, then the selective lesioning of those two modules would seem to indicate that A and B use different systems. Charter uses the example of someone who is allergic to peanuts but not shrimp and someone who is allergic to shrimp and not peanuts. He argues that double dissociation logic leads one to infer that peanuts and shrimp are digested by different systems. John Dunn offers another objection to double dissociation.[37] He claims that it is easy to demonstrate the existence of a true deficit but difficult to show that another function is truly spared. As more data is accumulated, the value of your results will converge on an effect size of zero, but there will always be a positive value greater than zero that has more statistical power than zero. Therefore, it is impossible to be fully confident that a given double dissociation actually exists.

On a different note, Alphonso Caramazza has given a principled reason for rejecting the use of group studies in cognitive neuropsychology.[38] Studies of brain damaged patients can either take the form of a single case study, in which an individual's behavior is characterized and used as evidence, or group studies, in which a group of patients displaying the same deficit have their behavior characterized and averaged. In order to justify grouping a set of patient data together, the researcher must know that the group is homogenous, that their behavior is equivalent in every theoretically meaningful way. In brain damaged patients, this can only be accomplished a posteriori by analyzing the behavior patterns of all the individuals in the group. Thus according to Caramazza, any group study is either the equivalent of a set of single case studies or is theoretically unjustified. Newcombe and Marshall pointed out that there are some cases (they use Geschwind's syndrome as an example) and that group studies might still serve as a useful heuristic in cognitive neuropsychological studies.[39]

Single-unit recordings

[edit]
Further information: Single-unit recording

It is commonly understood in neuroscience that information is encoded in the brain by the firing patterns of neurons.[40] Many of the philosophical questions surrounding the neural code are related to questions about representation and computation that are discussed below. There are other methodological questions including whether neurons represent information through an average firing rate or whether there is information represented by the temporal dynamics. There are similar questions about whether neurons represent information individually or as a population.

Computational neuroscience

[edit]

Many of the philosophical controversies surrounding computational neuroscience involve the role of simulation and modeling as explanation. Carl Craver has been especially vocal about such interpretations.[41] Jones and Love wrote an especially critical article targeted at Bayesian behavioral modeling that did not constrain the modeling parameters by psychological or neurological considerations[42] Eric Winsberg has written about the role of computer modeling and simulation in science generally, but his characterization is applicable to computational neuroscience.[43]

Relations between psychological and neuroscientific inquiries

[edit]

The controversy between psychological and neuroscientific inquiries is the subject they observe; whether they explore the same things? Suppose all psychological processes emanate from the brain, so does that mean that an understanding of the brain is all that is needed to understand these mental states (psychological states)?[44] In a consequence of the arguments of the above-sections, one of the biggest limitations for neuroimaging is that it is difficult for researchers to look at an image and conclude what is going on in the mind of the person being studied. Brain imaging isn’t mind-reading. Different thoughts, emotions, and behaviors may activate illuminated areas on a scan. There is no one spot in the brain for hate, love, or any other emotion.[45] The same brain cells may be involved in different functions. For example, the amygdala is often referred to as the fear center of the brain; however, it is active not only during negative emotional processing but also during positive emotional processing and is highly active in novel situations.[46]

In the mid-20th century, the fields of psychology and neuroscience had little to no overlap in their findings, discussions, or research aims. Neuroscience largely explored physical, biological phenomena in the brain, such as neurons, brain anatomy, spinal circuits, lesions, and reflexes. In contrast, psychologists examined observable behavior, such as conditioning, reinforcement patterns, learning responses, and stimulus response associations. More specifically, this early focus belonged to the subfield of behaviorism, which aimed to explain behavior entirely in terms of environmental factors and observable actions while avoiding any reference to internal mental states or cognitive processes.[47]

Ongoing debates about the overlap of psychology and neuroscience, many of which have ties to the traditional mind–body problem, began to emerge following the cognitive revolution. New computational models proposed by pioneers such as Alan Turing allowed for psychologists to reintroduce investigation of mental processes such as thoughts, emotions, beliefs, and other intangible constructs. As a result, the subfield of introspection was revitalized. Around the time of the cognitive revolution, more advanced neuroimaging techniques were being devloped and becoming standard practice. New studies revealed neural mechanisms for memory, perception, and decision-making, which meant neuroscientists could no longer ignore its connection with psychology. From this newfound overlap, arguments for the relationship, such as reductionism propelled by Churchland, arose alongside counterarguments such as autonomy asserted by Fodor.[48]

Computation and representation in the brain

[edit]

The computational theory of mind has been widespread in neuroscience since the cognitive revolution in the 1960s. This section will begin with a historical overview of computational neuroscience and then discuss various competing theories and controversies within the field.

Historical overview

[edit]

Computational neuroscience began in the 1930s and 1940s with two groups of researchers.[citation needed] The first group consisted of Alan Turing, Alonzo Church and John von Neumann, who were working to develop computing machines and the mathematical underpinnings of computer science.[49] This work culminated in the theoretical development of so-called Turing machines and the Church–Turing thesis, which formalized the mathematics underlying computability theory. The second group consisted of Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts who were working to develop the first artificial neural networks. McCulloch and Pitts were the first to hypothesize that neurons could be used to implement a logical calculus that could explain cognition. They used their toy neurons to develop logic gates that could make computations.[50] However these developments failed to take hold in the psychological sciences and neuroscience until the mid-1950s and 1960s. Behaviorism had dominated the psychology until the 1950s when new developments in a variety of fields overturned behaviorist theory in favor of a cognitive theory. From the beginning of the cognitive revolution, computational theory played a major role in theoretical developments. Minsky and McCarthy's work in artificial intelligence, Newell and Simon's computer simulations, and Noam Chomsky's importation of information theory into linguistics were all heavily reliant on computational assumptions.[51] By the early 1960s, Hilary Putnam was arguing in favor of machine functionalism in which the brain instantiated Turing machines. By this point computational theories were firmly fixed in psychology and neuroscience. By the mid-1980s, a group of researchers began using multilayer feed-forward analog neural networks that could be trained to perform a variety of tasks. The work by researchers like Sejnowski, Rosenberg, Rumelhart, and McClelland were labeled as connectionism, and the discipline has continued since then.[52] The connectionist mindset was embraced by Paul and Patricia Churchland who then developed their "state space semantics" using concepts from connectionist theory. Connectionism was also condemned by researchers such as Fodor, Pylyshyn, and Pinker. The tension between the connectionists and the classicists is still being debated today.

Representation

[edit]

One of the reasons that computational theories are appealing is that computers have the ability to manipulate representations to give meaningful output. Digital computers use strings of 1s and 0s in order to represent the content. Most cognitive scientists posit that the brain uses some form of representational code that is carried in the firing patterns of neurons. Computational accounts seem to offer an easy way of explaining how human brains carry and manipulate the perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and actions of individuals.[53] While most theorists maintain that representation is an important part of cognition, the exact nature of that representation is highly debated. The two main arguments come from advocates of symbolic representations and advocates of associationist representations.

Symbolic representational accounts have been famously championed by Fodor and Pinker. Symbolic representation means that the objects are represented by symbols and are processed through rule governed manipulations that are sensation to the constitutive structure. The fact that symbolic representation is sensitive to the structure of the representations is a major part of its appeal. Fodor proposed the language of thought hypothesis, in which mental representations are manipulated in the same way that language is syntactically manipulated in order to produce thought. According to Fodor, the language of thought hypothesis explains the systematicity and productivity seen in both language and thought.[54]

Associativist representations are most often described with connectionist systems. In connectionist systems, representations are distributed across all the nodes and connection weights of the system and thus are said to be sub symbolic.[55] A connectionist system is capable of implementing a symbolic system. There are several important aspects of neural nets that suggest that distributed parallel processing provides a better basis for cognitive functions than symbolic processing. Firstly, the inspiration for these systems came from the brain itself indicating biological relevance. Secondly, these systems are capable of storing content addressable memory, which is far more efficient than memory searches in symbolic systems. Thirdly, neural nets are resilient to damage while even minor damage can disable a symbolic system. Lastly, soft constraints and generalization when processing novel stimuli allow nets to behave more flexibly than symbolic systems.

The Churchlands described representation in a connectionist system in terms of state space. The content of the system is represented by an n-dimensional vector where the n= the number of nodes in the system and the direction of the vector is determined by the activation pattern of the nodes. Fodor rejected this method of representation on the grounds that two different connectionist systems could not have the same content.[56] Further mathematical analysis of connectionist system revealed that connectionist systems that could contain similar content could be mapped graphically to reveal clusters of nodes that were important to representing the content.[57] However, state space vector comparison was not amenable to this type of analysis. Recently, Nicholas Shea has offered his own account for content within connectionist systems that employs the concepts developed through cluster analysis.

Views on computation

[edit]

Computationalism, a kind of functionalist philosophy of mind, is committed to the position that the brain is some sort of computer, but what does it mean to be a computer? The definition of a computation must be narrow enough so that we limit the number of objects that can be called computers. For example, it might seem problematic to have a definition wide enough to allow stomachs and weather systems to be involved in computations. However, it is also necessary to have a definition broad enough to allow all of the wide varieties of computational systems to compute. For example, if the definition of computation is limited to syntactic manipulation of symbolic representations, then most connectionist systems would not be able to compute.[58] Rick Grush distinguishes between computation as a tool for simulation and computation as a theoretical stance in cognitive neuroscience.[59] For the former, anything that can be computationally modeled counts as computing. In the latter case, the brain is a computing function that is distinct from systems like fluid dynamic systems and the planetary orbits in this regard. The challenge for any computational definition is to keep the two senses distinct.

Alternatively, some theorists choose to accept a narrow or wide definition for theoretical reasons. Pancomputationalism is the position that everything can be said to compute. This view has been criticized by Piccinini on the grounds that such a definition makes computation trivial to the point where it is robbed of its explanatory value.[60]

The simplest definition of computations is that a system can be said to be computing when a computational description can be mapped onto the physical description. This is an extremely broad definition of computation and it ends up endorsing a form of pancomputationalism. Putnam and Searle, who are often credited with this view, maintain that computation is observer-related. In other words, if you want to view a system as computing then you can say that it is computing. Piccinini points out that, in this view, not only is everything computing, but also everything is computing in an indefinite number of ways.[61] Since it is possible to apply an indefinite number of computational descriptions to a given system, the system ends up computing an indefinite number of tasks.

The most common view of computation is the semantic account of computation. Semantic approaches use a similar notion of computation as the mapping approaches with the added constraint that the system must manipulate representations with semantic content. Note from the earlier discussion of representation that both the Churchlands' connectionist systems and Fodor's symbolic systems use this notion of computation. In fact, Fodor is famously credited as saying "No computation without representation".[62] Computational states can be individuated by an externalized appeal to content in a broad sense (i.e. the object in the external world) or by internalist appeal to the narrow sense content (content defined by the properties of the system).[63] In order to fix the content of the representation, it is often necessary to appeal to the information contained within the system. Grush provides a criticism of the semantic account.[59] He points out that appeal to the informational content of a system to demonstrate representation by the system. He uses his coffee cup as an example of a system that contains information, such as the heat conductance of the coffee cup and the time since the coffee was poured, but is too mundane to compute in any robust sense. Semantic computationalists try to escape this criticism by appealing to the evolutionary history of system. This is called the biosemantic account. Grush uses the example of his feet, saying that by this account his feet would not be computing the amount of food he had eaten because their structure had not been evolutionarily selected for that purpose. Grush replies to the appeal to biosemantics with a thought experiment. Imagine that lightning strikes a swamp somewhere and creates an exact copy of you. According to the biosemantic account, this swamp-you would be incapable of computation because there is no evolutionary history with which to justify assigning representational content. The idea that for two physically identical structures one can be said to be computing while the other is not should be disturbing to any physicalist.

There are also syntactic or structural accounts for computation. These accounts do not need to rely on representation. However, it is possible to use both structure and representation as constrains on computational mapping. Oron Shagrir identifies several philosophers of neuroscience who espouse structural accounts. According to him, Fodor and Pylyshyn require some sort of syntactic constraint on their theory of computation. This is consistent with their rejection of connectionist systems on the grounds of systematicity. He also identifies Piccinini as a structuralist quoting his 2008 paper: "the generation of output strings of digits from input strings of digits in accordance with a general rule that depends on the properties of the strings and (possibly) on the internal state of the system".[64] Though Piccinini undoubtedly espouses structuralist views in that paper, he claims that mechanistic accounts of computation avoid reference to either syntax or representation.[63] It is possible that Piccinini thinks that there are differences between syntactic and structural accounts of computation that Shagrir does not respect.

In his view of mechanistic computation, Piccinini asserts that functional mechanisms process vehicles in a manner sensitive to the differences between different portions of the vehicle, and thus can be said to generically compute. He claims that these vehicles are medium-independent, meaning that the mapping function will be the same regardless of the physical implementation. Computing systems can be differentiated based upon the vehicle structure and the mechanistic perspective can account for errors in computation.

Dynamical systems theory presents itself as an alternative to computational explanations of cognition. These theories are staunchly anti-computational and anti-representational. Dynamical systems are defined as systems that change over time in accordance with a mathematical equation. Dynamical systems theory claims that human cognition is a dynamical model in the same sense computationalists claim that the human mind is a computer.[65] A common objection leveled at dynamical systems theory is that dynamical systems are computable and therefore a subset of computationalism. Van Gelder is quick to point out that there is a big difference between being a computer and being computable. Making the definition of computing wide enough to incorporate dynamical models would effectively embrace pancomputationalism.

List of neurophilosophers

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Neurophilosophy

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Neurophilosophy is an interdisciplinary field that bridges and to examine the neural underpinnings of mental phenomena, positing that the mind emerges as a level of activity rather than a separate entity. This approach challenges traditional dualist views of mind and body, advocating instead for a unified where empirical findings from research inform and refine philosophical inquiries into concepts like , , and selfhood. Coined by philosopher in her seminal 1986 book Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified of the Mind-, the term encapsulates efforts to replace folk psychological explanations—such as beliefs and desires—with neurobiologically grounded accounts of and . Emerging in the late amid advances in and , neurophilosophy gained traction as researchers demonstrated how neural mechanisms support higher-order functions previously deemed mysterious or immaterial. Key figures, including Churchland and her collaborator , promoted eliminative materialism, the idea that many everyday mental concepts may be discarded or revised as reveals more precise brain-based alternatives. The field has since expanded to address ethical dimensions, such as how neurohormones like oxytocin underpin social bonding and moral intuitions, drawing on cross-species studies of mammals to explain human attachments and judgments. Central themes in neurophilosophy include the nature of neural representations—how the encodes abstract ideas like categories or absent objects—and the implications of brain plasticity for philosophical debates on and . By integrating multilevel analyses of organization, from molecular processes to cognitive systems, it critiques overly simplistic models like classical , pushing toward dynamic frameworks such as semantic networks for understanding thought. Today, neurophilosophy influences diverse areas, from to clinical applications in disorders like , where atypical neural circuitry disrupts and guilt.

Introduction

Definition and Scope

Neurophilosophy is the philosophical study of the 's role in mental phenomena, integrating empirical evidence from to constrain and reshape traditional inquiries in the . It seeks to understand how neural processes underpin aspects of , , and , advocating for a unified of the mind-brain that bridges disciplinary divides. The term "neurophilosophy" was introduced by philosopher in her seminal 1986 book Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain, which outlines this interdisciplinary framework and emphasizes the relevance of brain to philosophical debates. The scope of neurophilosophy centers on core topics such as , (the "aboutness" of mental states), and the nature of the , exploring their neural foundations through evidence like neurological syndromes or brain imaging. Unlike pure , which primarily engages in conceptual analysis of mental states without requiring empirical validation, neurophilosophy prioritizes data to evaluate and refine such analyses. In contrast to neuroscience proper, which generates empirical findings on brain function without addressing their broader philosophical implications, neurophilosophy interprets these findings to tackle normative questions about and subjective experience. Central to neurophilosophy are principles that leverage neuroscientific evidence to test or refute classical philosophical theories, such as dualism (which separates mind from body) or functionalism (which defines mental states by their causal roles irrespective of physical substrate). Churchland, for example, contends that discoveries in directly inform , stating that "nothing could be more obvious… than the relevance of empirical facts about how the brain works to concerns in the philosophy of mind." This approach promotes a "co-evolution" of ideas, where philosophical hypotheses are iteratively refined by advancing neuroscientific knowledge.

Interdisciplinary Nature

Neurophilosophy emerges as a field that integrates , , and to forge a unified framework for investigating the mind, where supplies conceptual tools such as analyses of and , provides empirical data on brain structures and functions, and contributes behavioral and computational models of . This interdisciplinary blending rejects strict disciplinary silos, promoting instead a "co-evolutionary" approach in which theoretical advancements in one domain iteratively refine those in others, as exemplified by Patricia Churchland's advocacy for mutual constraint between philosophical theorizing and neuroscientific findings to resolve debates on . For instance, ontological questions about the nature of mental states draw on neuroscientific evidence of distributed neural processing to challenge dualist assumptions, while 's models of learning inform philosophical inquiries into . Methodological synergy in neurophilosophy manifests through bidirectional critique and enrichment: philosophers rigorously examine neuroscientific assumptions, such as the strict modularity of cognitive functions proposed in Jerry Fodor's framework, by highlighting empirical evidence from neural connectivity that suggests more integrated, distributed architectures. In turn, neuroscientific data directly informs and constrains philosophical debates, as seen in Paul Churchland's use of vector-space semantics derived from neural network models to redefine concepts like meaning and representation, thereby bridging psychosemantics with brain-level computations. This reciprocal process fosters hybrid methodologies that combine conceptual analysis with empirical validation, ensuring that philosophical arguments are not merely armchair speculations but are tested against observable brain phenomena. The field's broader influences extend to , where neurophilosophical insights into connectionist neural networks—parallel distributed processing systems inspired by brain architecture—have shaped computational models of and learning, as Paul and Patricia Churchland have emphasized in their critiques of symbolic AI paradigms. Similarly, connections to involve reevaluating folk psychological concepts like beliefs and desires through , which posits that such everyday explanations may be supplanted by mature , as argued by to promote a more scientifically robust understanding of mental states. Hybrid approaches exemplify this synthesis, such as employing thought experiments on pain that incorporate neural data to analyze subjective experience without presupposing the independence of from physical processes, thereby grounding phenomenological discussions in empirical reality.

Historical Development

Precursors

The roots of neurophilosophy trace back to ancient materialist philosophies that sought to explain mental phenomena through physical processes in the brain. , a pre-Socratic philosopher, developed a materialist worldview positing that the consists of indivisible atoms and void, extending this to the mind by conceiving the soul as composed of spherical, fire-like atoms that enable sensation and thought through their interactions with the body. , building on Democritean , refined this idea by describing the soul as a composite of fine, smooth atoms dispersed throughout the body, concentrated in the chest, where they facilitate and emotional responses by mingling with flesh and breath. These early views contrasted sharply with idealist traditions, emphasizing that mental states emerge from atomic rearrangements in the brain rather than immaterial essences. In the 17th and 18th centuries, debates intensified between dualist and materialist conceptions of mind and body, setting the stage for neurophilosophical inquiry. articulated substance dualism, arguing that the mind is a non-extended, thinking substance distinct from the extended, mechanical body, with interactions occurring via the in the . In opposition, advanced a thoroughgoing , asserting that all mental phenomena, including thought and sensation, arise from the motions of material bodies, with the serving as the organ where these motions produce consciousness. extended this materialist trajectory in his 1747 treatise L'Homme Machine, portraying humans as complex automata whose behaviors and thoughts stem entirely from neural mechanisms, rejecting Cartesian dualism in favor of a continuity between animal and human driven by organization. The marked a shift toward empirical investigations of brain-mind mappings, influenced by advances in and . , a Viennese physician active from 1796 to 1826, pioneered , theorizing that the comprises distinct organs corresponding to specific mental faculties, whose development enlarges skull regions detectable by palpation, thus linking personality traits to localized cerebral structures. This localizationist approach gained traction despite methodological flaws, inspiring later by emphasizing the brain's modular organization. In 1861, provided seminal evidence for functional localization through his autopsy of patient "Tan," revealing that damage to the left inferior frontal gyrus impaired articulate speech while preserving comprehension, thereby identifying a key region for . A pivotal conceptual bridge emerged with the advent of , which quantified the relationship between physical stimuli and subjective sensations, implying underlying neural mechanisms. Gustav Theodor Fechner formalized this in his 1860 work Elements of Psychophysics, introducing methods like the to measure sensory thresholds, positing that mental experiences correspond to logarithmic transformations of physical intensities in the .

Founding and Evolution

Neurophilosophy emerged as a distinct interdisciplinary field in the late 1980s, primarily through the foundational work of philosophers engaging directly with to address longstanding questions about the mind. Patricia Churchland's 1986 book, Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain, served as the seminal text, advocating for a unified approach that integrates empirical findings from neurobiology with philosophical inquiry into mental phenomena. In this work, Churchland argued that traditional philosophical concepts of the mind must be revised in light of neuroscientific evidence, emphasizing the brain as the substrate for cognitive processes. Concurrently, advanced during the 1980s, positing that folk psychological notions like beliefs and desires would eventually be supplanted by neuroscientific explanations as the field matured. The 1990s and 2000s marked a period of rapid evolution for neurophilosophy, coinciding with the boom in cognitive neuroscience driven by advances in brain imaging and computational modeling. This era saw philosophers increasingly incorporating neural data into analyses of mental states, fostering a dialogue between empirical science and conceptual theory. A key contribution was Daniel Dennett's 1991 book Consciousness Explained, which drew on emerging neuroscientific insights to propose a multiple-drafts model of consciousness, challenging qualia-based views by grounding experience in distributed brain processes. During this time, neurophilosophy gained traction as a method for resolving philosophical puzzles through brain science, with figures like the Churchlands emphasizing empirical constraints on theory-building. In the 2010s and into the 2020s, neurophilosophy has deepened its integration with large-scale neuroscience projects and artificial intelligence, reflecting broader technological shifts. The 2013 launch of the BRAIN Initiative in the United States accelerated this by funding tools for mapping neural circuits, which in turn influenced philosophical discussions on brain organization and mental representation. Connectomics, the comprehensive mapping of neural connections, emerged as a core tool, enabling philosophers to explore how network architecture underpins cognition and informing debates on the mind-brain interface. Similarly, the rise of AI, particularly deep learning models, prompted neurophilosophers to draw analogies between artificial neural networks and brain computation, questioning implications for understanding intelligence and agency. By 2021, dedicated outlets like the Journal of NeuroPhilosophy began publishing work at this intersection, focusing on ethical dimensions of neural technologies and subjective experience. Key milestones underscore this trajectory: in the 2000s, debates on (NCCs) intensified, with empirical studies identifying candidate brain mechanisms for and sparking philosophical scrutiny of sufficiency versus necessity in correlating neural activity to experience. Entering the , attention shifted to parallels between algorithms and neural dynamics, as researchers uncovered shared representational strategies in AI systems and biological brains, further blurring lines between computational models and neurophilosophical theories of mind.

Core Concepts

Mind-Brain Relationship

The mind-brain relationship lies at the core of neurophilosophy, examining how mental states—such as beliefs, desires, and perceptions—correspond to physical processes in the . This inquiry bridges and by evaluating whether mental phenomena are reducible to neural activity, dependent on it, or independently realizable. Neurophilosophers draw on from and behavioral studies to assess ontological claims about the nature of mind, emphasizing the interplay between conceptual analysis and scientific findings. One prominent theory in this domain is the mind-brain identity theory, which asserts that mental states are identical to specific brain states or processes. Proposed by U.T. Place in his 1956 paper, this view argues that consciousness and other mental phenomena are not distinct from neurophysiological events, analogous to how is identical to electrical discharges in the atmosphere. further developed this position in 1959, contending that sensations, such as pains or visual experiences, are identical to brain processes, rejecting any non-physical properties of the mind to avoid dualism. This theory finds support in lesion studies, where damage to particular brain regions produces predictable mental deficits; for instance, injuries to in the left result in , suggesting a direct correspondence between localized neural structures and language production capabilities. An alternative framework is , which holds that mental properties on physical states, meaning no two individuals can differ in their mental states without differing in their states, yet without requiring strict identity. Donald Davidson introduced this concept in his 1970 essay "Mental Events," proposing , where mental events are physical events (token identity) but mental descriptions are not nomologically reducible to physical ones due to the holistic nature of intentional states. thus accommodates the dependence of mind on while preserving the irreducibility of psychological explanations, influencing neurophilosophical debates on how informs but does not fully eliminate folk psychology. Functionalism, a key response to identity theory, invokes —the idea that the same can be realized by diverse physical substrates, including non-biological ones like silicon-based systems. advanced this in the 1960s, arguing that mental states are defined by their functional roles rather than specific neural implementations, allowing for type-type mental states to map onto multiple physical types across species or artificial systems. However, this claim faces critique from neurophilosophical perspectives emphasizing neural specificity, as articulated in Jerry Fodor's hypothesis, which posits that cognitive systems are composed of domain-specific, informationally encapsulated modules tightly linked to dedicated circuitry, limiting the scope of multiple realizability even within a single species. Fodor's framework, drawing on evidence of localized neural processing, challenges the idea of abstract functional equivalence by highlighting how psychological functions are constrained by biological architecture. Neurophilosophical evaluation of these theories often incorporates evidence from patients, whose has been severed to treat severe , revealing discrepancies in hemispheric processing that question the unity of the mind. In studies from the 1960s, and colleagues demonstrated that the right hemisphere could recognize objects visually but fail to verbalize them, while the left hemisphere controlled speech, suggesting that a single, integrated mind emerges from interhemispheric integration rather than isolated brain states. This evidence supports by showing mental unity depends on brain connectivity without implying strict identity, while complicating by underscoring the role of specific neural pathways in conscious experience.

Consciousness and Qualia

In neurophilosophy, the (NCCs) refer to the minimal set of neural events and mechanisms sufficient for a specific conscious percept, as defined by and in their seminal proposal to identify such correlates through experimental methods like visual awareness studies. For instance, in binocular rivalry experiments—where conflicting images are presented to each eye, leading to alternating conscious perceptions— has revealed involvement of regions in modulating the transitions between rival states, suggesting higher-order processing contributes to conscious access. Prominent neurophilosophical theories of consciousness include the (GWT), proposed by Bernard Baars, which posits that consciousness arises when is broadcast globally across brain networks for widespread access, akin to a theater spotlight illuminating content for cognitive integration. In contrast, (IIT), developed by , argues that consciousness corresponds to the capacity of a system to integrate in a unified, irreducible manner, quantified by a measure called (Φ) that reflects causal interactions within the system. Neural evidence from (EEG) supports aspects of both: GWT aligns with observed long-range gamma-band synchrony during conscious , indicating broadcast-like mechanisms in frontoparietal networks, while IIT is consistent with posterior hotspot activity. A 2025 adversarial collaboration using intracranial EEG found stronger support for IIT's sustained high-gamma activity in posterior cortex over GWT's predicted prefrontal ignition during conscious . IIT is further supported by reduced integration in states like , where EEG shows diminished complexity. The problem of qualia—the subjective, qualitative aspects of conscious experience, such as the "what it is like" to see red—poses a central challenge in neurophilosophy, famously articulated by David Chalmers as the "hard problem" of explaining why physical processes in the brain give rise to phenomenal feelings rather than merely functional behaviors. Chalmers distinguishes this from "easy problems" like attention or reportability, arguing that no reductive account fully bridges the explanatory gap between neural activity and first-person experience. In response, Daniel Dennett advances illusionism, contending that qualia are not intrinsic features but illusions generated by introspective misrepresentations of brain function, such that the apparent hardness of the problem dissolves under closer scrutiny of cognitive mechanisms. Empirical investigations into conscious will further complicate neurophilosophical accounts, as demonstrated by Benjamin Libet's experiments showing that a readiness potential—a slow-rising negativity in EEG over the —begins approximately 350 milliseconds before subjects report conscious intention to act, suggesting unconscious neural initiation precedes subjective awareness. These findings challenge traditional views of conscious control, prompting debates on whether they undermine libertarian or instead highlight timing discrepancies in self-reporting, without resolving the underlying phenomenal aspects of .

Representation and Computation

In neurophilosophy, the debate over how the represents centers on localist versus distributed models. Localist representations posit that specific concepts or features are encoded by individual s, exemplified by the "grandmother cell" hypothesis, where a single might respond exclusively to a highly specific stimulus like a particular face. This idea, though largely discredited for complex , has been challenged by evidence from early studies showing that no such dedicated cells exist for intricate patterns; instead, simple and complex cells respond to oriented edges and contours through overlapping receptive fields, suggesting broader involvement. Distributed representations, in contrast, encode across populations of s, where the collective activity of many cells conveys meaning, as seen in population coding for visual orientation selectivity. Computational perspectives in neurophilosophy further explore how these representations enable function, contrasting classical models with connectionist alternatives. Classical computation views the as akin to a , performing serial, rule-based operations on symbolic representations through algorithmic steps, a framework rooted in early that emphasizes discrete, manipulable symbols. However, connectionist approaches, advanced through parallel distributed (PDP) models, propose that the operates via networks of interconnected units that process information in a , subsymbolic manner, learning patterns from distributed activations without explicit rules. This shift highlights the 's capacity for graceful degradation and context-sensitive , aligning more closely with neural than rigid serial . Philosophically, these neuroscientific insights critique Jerry Fodor's language of thought hypothesis, which posits that relies on a symbolic, compositional "mentalese" akin to a for and . Neuroevidence from connectionist simulations and cortical recordings reveals non-symbolic processing, where representations emerge from vector-like patterns in neural populations rather than discrete symbols, undermining the need for a centralized, language-like medium of thought. , for instance, argues that such findings favor a vector coding semantics over propositional attitudes, rendering Fodor's symbolic paradigm empirically untenable in light of brain dynamics. More recent developments incorporate models, where the brain represents the world by generating hierarchical predictions and minimizing errors between expected and sensory inputs, as formalized in Karl Friston's free-energy principle. In this framework, representations are dynamic Bayesian inferences updated via top-down signals, with computation involving variational approximations to resolve uncertainty, offering a unified account of , action, and learning that bridges representation and neural . This approach has profound implications for neurophilosophy, suggesting the brain functions as an optimizing surprise reduction, rather than a passive manipulator.

Methodological Approaches

Neuroimaging Techniques

Neuroimaging techniques have become central to neurophilosophy by providing empirical data on activity correlated with mental states, enabling philosophers to test hypotheses about the mind- relationship through observable neural patterns. These methods non-invasively measure physiological changes associated with , offering insights into how mental processes might be realized in the , though they raise philosophical questions about and the interpretation of activation patterns. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) detects brain activation primarily through the blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal, which reflects changes in blood flow and oxygenation linked to neuronal activity. Developed in the early 1990s, following foundational work on BOLD contrast by Seiji Ogawa and colleagues in 1990, fMRI gained prominence with its first human applications in 1992, allowing real-time mapping of brain regions active during cognitive tasks. In neurophilosophy, fMRI has been applied to study emotion and decision-making; for instance, activations in the orbitofrontal cortex are associated with reward processing and emotional valuation, while prefrontal areas show involvement in deliberative choices, informing debates on whether such patterns support representational theories of mind. Positron emission tomography (PET) measures regional cerebral metabolism and blood flow by tracking radioactive tracers, such as fluorodeoxyglucose, which accumulate in metabolically active tissues. Introduced in the and refined for in the , PET provides insights into energy consumption during mental tasks, complementing fMRI by focusing on longer-term metabolic processes rather than rapid hemodynamic changes. (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) offer complementary high , capturing electrical or magnetic fields from neuronal currents on a scale, which is crucial for tracking the timing of cognitive events like or , though their spatial resolution is coarser than fMRI or PET. In neurophilosophy, these techniques facilitate mapping mental functions to brain regions, as seen in reinterpretations of historical cases like Gage's injury; modern reconstructions using computed and MRI simulations have clarified damage to tracts in his frontal lobes, linking it to changes in impulse control and , thus updating philosophical views on localizationism. However, a key challenge is the "reverse inference" fallacy, where activation in a brain area is taken to directly imply engagement of a specific cognitive process, despite many functions potentially eliciting the same signal; Russell Poldrack highlighted this issue in , arguing that such inferences require prior knowledge of forward mappings to avoid overinterpretation. Limitations further complicate philosophical reliance on neuroimaging, including trade-offs in spatial and —fMRI achieves millimeter-scale spatial detail but seconds-long temporal sampling, while EEG/MEG excels in timing but struggles with precise localization—and the "pure insertion" problem, where adding a stimulus or task assumes no interactions with ongoing processes, potentially isolation of individual mental components. These constraints underscore neurophilosophy's emphasis on cautious interpretation, as activations may reflect epiphenomena rather than direct causes of mental states. Extensions like resting-state fMRI, which examines spontaneous fluctuations without tasks, have begun addressing some inference issues by revealing intrinsic network connectivity.

Lesion and Electrophysiological Methods

Lesion studies in provide critical evidence for understanding brain function by examining deficits resulting from targeted brain damage, enabling inferences about the necessity of specific regions for particular cognitive processes. These methods involve analyzing patients with naturally occurring or surgically induced lesions, such as those from strokes, tumors, or treatments, to identify patterns of impairment that reveal functional dissociations. A seminal example is the case of patient H.M. (), who underwent bilateral hippocampal removal in 1953 to alleviate severe ; this procedure resulted in profound , sparing other memory types and cognitive abilities, thereby establishing the hippocampus's essential role in forming new declarative memories. Double dissociations, where one patient exhibits impairment in function A but not B, while another shows the opposite pattern, offer particularly strong evidence for independent cognitive modules. In his comprehensive analysis, Tim Shallice illustrated how such dissociations, for instance between (impaired object recognition despite intact perception) and (impaired gesture production despite intact comprehension), support fractionated models of rather than unitary processes. These findings from lesion data have informed neurophilosophical debates by demonstrating how brain damage can selectively disrupt components of mental architecture, challenging holistic views of mind-brain relations. Electrophysiological methods complement lesion studies by recording neural activity directly, often through single-unit recordings in animal models, to probe the fine-grained dynamics of function. Intracellular and extracellular recordings allow measurement of individual firing patterns in response to stimuli or behaviors, providing temporal precision unattainable with other techniques. A landmark discovery came from John O'Keefe and Jonathan Dostrovsky, who identified "place cells" in the rat hippocampus during 1971 experiments; these neurons fire selectively when the animal occupies specific locations, suggesting a neural basis for spatial representation and modularity in navigational cognition. Such recordings imply that cognitive functions like and arise from specialized neural ensembles, influencing neurophilosophical arguments for computational theories of mind. In neurophilosophy, and electrophysiological methods hold particular value for establishing in -behavior relations, offering stronger evidence than correlational approaches like fMRI, which primarily show associations during task performance. By manipulating or observing and activity, these invasive techniques allow philosophers to test hypotheses about mental processes, such as whether depends on specific neural circuits. However, critiques highlight limitations in strict localizationism, as syndromic variability—where similar s produce diverse outcomes due to factors like individual or compensatory mechanisms—underscores the 's distributed and plastic nature, cautioning against overly simplistic mappings of function to structure. Resting-state functional connectivity, an electrophysiological extension often derived from EEG or recordings, examines intrinsic networks during wakeful rest without tasks, revealing baseline organizational principles. Marcus Raichle and colleagues originally identified the (DMN) in 2001 using (PET); similar coordinated activity in medial prefrontal and posterior cingulate regions, linked to self-referential thought and , has been observed in resting-state functional connectivity derived from EEG or recordings. This methodological approach in neurophilosophy aids in exploring unconscious processes and their philosophical implications for , emphasizing how ongoing neural dynamics underpin subjective experience beyond active cognition.

Computational Modeling

Computational modeling in neurophilosophy involves the use of mathematical and simulation-based approaches to explore function, bridging empirical with philosophical inquiries into , representation, and mental processes. Two primary paradigms dominate this field: dynamical systems modeling, which emphasizes continuous, time-evolving interactions among neural components without discrete symbolic rules, and symbolic computation, which posits the as performing rule-based operations akin to a digital computer. In dynamical systems approaches, activity is conceptualized as trajectories in state space governed by differential equations, capturing emergent behaviors like oscillations and bifurcations that may underlie and . Symbolic models, by contrast, treat as manipulation of discrete symbols according to formal algorithms, drawing from classical AI but critiqued in neurophilosophy for oversimplifying the 's massively parallel, distributed nature. A foundational example of dynamical modeling is the Hodgkin-Huxley model, developed in 1952 to describe the ionic mechanisms of action potential generation in squid giant axons. This model uses a set of nonlinear differential equations to simulate membrane potential dynamics, incorporating sodium and potassium conductances as voltage-gated channels. The core equation for the membrane potential VV is: CmdVdt=I−gNam3h(V−ENa)−gKn4(V−EK)−gL(V−EL),C_m \frac{dV}{dt} = I - g_{Na} m^3 h (V - E_{Na}) - g_K n^4 (V - E_K) - g_L (V - E_L), where CmC_m is membrane capacitance, II is applied current, gNag_{Na}, gKg_K, and gLg_L are maximum conductances for sodium, potassium, and leak channels, respectively, mm, hh, and nn are activation/inactivation gating variables with their own differential equations, and ENaE_{Na}, EKE_K, ELE_L are reversal potentials. This framework revolutionized neurophysiology by providing a quantitative basis for neuronal excitability, informing neurophilosophical debates on whether brain computation is fundamentally biophysical and continuous rather than discretely rule-bound. Simulations of the model demonstrate how small perturbations in ionic currents can lead to regenerative firing, highlighting the brain's sensitivity to nonlinear dynamics. Connectionism represents a shift toward distributed, pattern-based processing in neurophilosophy, challenging paradigms by modeling the brain as networks of interconnected units akin to neurons. Multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs), trained via the algorithm introduced by Rumelhart, Hinton, and Williams in , exemplify this approach; computes error gradients through the network layers to adjust weights, enabling of internal representations from data. In this paradigm, knowledge emerges from weighted connections rather than explicit rules, aligning with neurophilosophical views—such as those advanced by —that cognition arises from vector coding in high-dimensional neural spaces, eschewing folk-psychological notions of propositional beliefs. This philosophical pivot from rule-following to probabilistic has influenced debates on and , suggesting the mind-brain operates via associative gradients rather than logical . Applications of computational modeling extend to higher-level processes, providing insights into philosophical questions about agency and . The drift-diffusion model (DDM), proposed by Ratcliff in 1978 for memory retrieval tasks, simulates as a stochastic accumulation of evidence toward choice boundaries, with parameters for drift rate (evidence quality), boundary separation (caution), and non-decision time. In neurophilosophy, DDM informs views on by quantifying how noisy neural integration yields deliberate choices, as evidenced by its fit to reaction time distributions in perceptual tasks. Similarly, simulations of the global neuronal workspace (GNW) theory, developed by Dehaene and colleagues starting in 1998, model as ignition of widespread cortical activity when stimuli exceed an access threshold, using rate-based equations for pyramidal cells and inhibitory to replicate masking and attentional effects. These models suggest involves broadcast-like across regions, challenging dualistic accounts by grounding in integrated neural dynamics. Despite their explanatory power, computational models in neurophilosophy face critiques regarding under-determination and ontological realism. Multiple models can fit the same neural or behavioral equally well, leading to under-determination where fails to uniquely identify the underlying mechanisms, as seen in cases of computational indeterminacy in large-scale simulations. For instance, abstract parameters in DDM or GNW may not correspond to specific neural populations, raising questions about whether these abstractions faithfully represent actual computation or merely instrumental tools. Neurophilosophers argue this highlights the limits of , as models' simplifications—such as ignoring or glial contributions—undermine claims to realism, yet they remain valuable for generation in mind- debates.

Philosophical Debates

Reductionism and Eliminativism

In neurophilosophy, reductionism addresses the relationship between mental phenomena and neural processes, distinguishing between ontological and epistemological forms. Ontological reductionism posits that mental states are identical to or fully realized by brain states, such that the mind is nothing more than the brain's activity. Epistemological reductionism, by contrast, claims that higher-level psychological explanations can be derived from or supplanted by lower-level neuroscientific ones, without necessarily equating the entities themselves. This distinction is central to debates on whether neuroscience can fully account for cognition and consciousness, often linking to the mind-brain identity theory by suggesting that psychological concepts reduce to neural mechanisms. A key critique of strong reductionism comes from Thomas Nagel's argument on the irreducibility of subjective experience, exemplified by the question of "what it is like" to be a . Nagel contends that physical descriptions of bat echolocation fail to capture the phenomenal qualities of bat consciousness, highlighting an that ontological reduction cannot bridge due to the inherently subjective nature of . This challenges epistemological reduction by implying that neuroscientific accounts, no matter how detailed, may never fully explain first-person perspectives without remainder. Eliminativism extends reductionism radically by arguing that folk psychology's core concepts—such as beliefs and desires—are part of a false theory destined for elimination, akin to the historical rejection of phlogiston in chemistry. Paul Churchland's 1981 defense of eliminative materialism asserts that propositional attitudes lack empirical support from neuroscience and will be replaced by a mature vector coding framework from connectionist models, which better explain cognitive processes without invoking intentional states. Churchland draws on early successes in connectionism, such as parallel distributed processing networks, to illustrate how eliminativism aligns with neuroscientific progress by discarding empirically inadequate folk concepts. Recent developments, such as the 2025 proposal of phenomenological 4E eliminative materialism, integrate embodied and enactive cognition to refine eliminativist approaches, suggesting consciousness emerges from dynamic sensorimotor interactions rather than isolated propositional states. Counterarguments emphasize the autonomy of psychological explanations. Jerry Fodor's 1983 work on the defends non-reductive , arguing that higher-level psychological laws remain valid despite multiple realizability, where the same can be instantiated by diverse neural realizations across species or individuals. This preserves folk 's explanatory power, as strict reduction would require one-to-one mappings that multiple realizability precludes. Fodor's earlier 1974 analysis further supports this by showing that special sciences like operate with autonomous laws not derivable from physics or . Evidence from neural plasticity further complicates strict . Donald Hebb's 1949 theory of Hebbian learning posits that synaptic connections strengthen through correlated activity ("cells that fire together wire together"), demonstrating how experience dynamically reshapes neural structures and challenges fixed ontological reductions of mind to static brain states. This plasticity underscores the emergent, adaptive nature of mental processes, suggesting that eliminativist replacement of folk psychology overlooks the robustness of higher-level descriptions in accommodating such variability.

Free Will and Determinism

In neurophilosophy, the debate on free will and determinism examines how neural processes might reconcile or conflict with human agency, particularly whether brain mechanisms imply a deterministic universe incompatible with genuine choice or allow for volitional control within causal chains. Compatibilists argue that free will is preserved even under neural determinism, as agency arises from complex, self-regulating systems rather than absolute indeterminacy. This view posits that free will consists in the capacity for rational deliberation and control, which neural evidence supports through prefrontal cortex activity involved in decision-making. Daniel Dennett's compatibilist framework, outlined in his 1984 book Elbow Room, maintains that free will is compatible with determinism because it requires only the avoidance of external constraints and the exercise of competence in choosing actions, not exemption from natural laws. Neuroscientific support for this comes from studies showing the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex's role in executive control during free-choice tasks, where it integrates sensory inputs and inhibits impulsive responses to enable deliberate selection among options. For instance, functional MRI evidence indicates that prefrontal activation modulates choice outcomes by weighing probabilities and values, suggesting agency emerges from hierarchical neural computations rather than being illusory. In contrast, incompatibilists contend that neural determinism undermines by demonstrating unconscious origins of actions, rendering conscious volition epiphenomenal. Benjamin Libet's seminal 1983 experiments revealed a readiness potential—a buildup of electrical activity in the —emerging approximately 350 milliseconds before subjects reported conscious intent to move, implying that voluntary acts initiate unconsciously. Libet interpreted this as showing unconscious initiation but argued for a conscious mechanism that preserves by allowing interruption of the act. Some subsequent interpretations, however, have suggested this timing gap portrays as an illusion, with the brain's deterministic processes predetermining choices prior to awareness. Recent critiques and replications (2023–2025) challenge this, finding no readiness potential in decisions of high importance and emphasizing that unconscious processes do not negate conscious agency in complex choices. Extensions using multivoxel pattern analysis have predicted decisions up to 10 seconds in advance from prefrontal and parietal signals, but ongoing debates question whether these predict specific choices or mere biases. Libertarian perspectives in neurophilosophy seek to preserve for by invoking quantum effects in the , arguing that classical determinism fails to account for non-computable aspects of choice. and Stuart Hameroff's (Orch OR) theory, proposed in the mid-1990s, hypothesizes that quantum superpositions in neuronal collapse via gravitational objective reduction, introducing genuine indeterminacy that could enable libertarian without randomness dominating behavior. This model links quantum indeterminacy to conscious moments, suggesting orchestrate collapses at frequencies aligning with neural firing rates. The theory has faced significant critiques for relying on speculative interpretations of , though recent experimental evidence as of 2025, including studies on anesthetic effects and quantum coherence in , provides partial support in warm environments. More recent neurophilosophical approaches, such as Andy Clark's predictive processing framework in Surfing Uncertainty (2016), reframe agency within by viewing the as a that minimizes errors between expectations and sensory inputs. In this model, manifests as active , where agents generate actions to reduce uncertainty and align predictions with outcomes, thus compatibilizing volition with neural causation without requiring quantum breaks. Clark argues this error-minimization process underscores agency as an emergent property of , where choices serve to optimize predictive models rather than defy . This perspective integrates empirical findings from Bayesian brain models, showing how prefrontal hierarchies update priors during to support flexible control.

Limits of Empirical Methods

One major limitation of empirical methods in neurophilosophy lies in their indirect nature, particularly the challenge of establishing causation from mere correlations between brain activity and mental states. techniques, such as fMRI, often reveal patterns of neural activation associated with cognitive or experiential phenomena, but these associations do not directly access subjective states like or , leaving room for alternative explanations that confound philosophical inferences about mind-brain identity. This "mere correlations" problem underscores how brain scans provide descriptive data on physiological events without necessarily illuminating the underlying psychological mechanisms, thereby restricting their utility for resolving debates on or representation. Specific inferential challenges exacerbate this indirectness, notably in the practice of reverse inference prevalent in fMRI studies. Reverse inference involves deducing the engagement of a cognitive process from the activation of a region, assuming that prior associations between the region and process hold in the current context; however, this approach is probabilistically weak because regions are typically involved in multiple functions, leading to overinterpretation of localized activity. Complementing this, the pure insertion assumption underlying subtractive methods—where baseline tasks are subtracted from experimental ones to isolate cognitive components—often fails due to non-additive interactions among processes, violating the premise that inserting or removing a mental operation does not alter others. For instance, when subtracting a simple perceptual baseline from a complex task, unaccounted interactions can artifactually inflate or diminish the inferred contribution of specific neural pathways, undermining claims about modular brain functions. Lesion and electrophysiological methods face analogous constraints through the limits of dissociations, where single-case studies aim to reveal functional independence but struggle with generalizability. In research, for example, apparent dissociations between preserved and impaired faculties in individual patients—such as intact repetition but deficient comprehension—may not represent universal architectures due to inter-patient variability in sites, compensatory mechanisms, and heterogeneity, rendering single cases insufficient for broad theoretical commitments. This variability implies that what appears as a clean dissociation in one case could reflect idiosyncratic factors rather than a core mind-brain relation, highlighting the need for convergent evidence across multiple patients to mitigate sampling biases. Philosophically, these empirical limits necessitate theory-laden interpretations of data, where prior conceptual frameworks inevitably shape how neural evidence is framed and evaluated. This aligns with Quine's underdetermination thesis, which posits that empirical data underdetermine theoretical choices, allowing multiple incompatible hypotheses to fit the same observations; in neuroscience, this manifests as rival interpretations of activation patterns or lesion effects, each supported by the evidence but diverging on implications for or mental causation. Consequently, neurophilosophical conclusions remain provisional, requiring integration with to bridge inferential gaps and avoid overreliance on unverified assumptions about brain-mind mapping.

Key Figures

Churchlands' Contributions

Patricia Churchland's foundational contribution to neurophilosophy is encapsulated in her 1986 book Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain, where she argues for integrating into philosophical inquiry to address longstanding questions about the mind, emphasizing that mental states are ultimately neural processes. In this work, she advocates state-space semantics, positing that the represents concepts and perceptual content through high-dimensional vectors in neural state spaces, rather than discrete symbolic propositions, allowing for a more fluid and context-sensitive understanding of cognition. Churchland critiques traditional propositional attitudes—such as beliefs and desires—as artifacts of folk that fail to map onto empirical neural mechanisms, suggesting they may require revision or elimination as advances. Paul Churchland advanced eliminative materialism in his 1984 book Matter and Consciousness: A Contemporary Introduction to the , proposing that common-sense mental concepts from folk are likely false and destined for replacement by a mature , much like outdated theories in other sciences. He further developed the idea of vector coding for brain representation, particularly in The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul (1995), where he describes how sensory systems encode information as distributed patterns across populations of neurons in vector spaces, enabling efficient and generalization beyond rigid rule-based systems. The Churchlands' joint efforts culminated in a neurocomputational paradigm, notably in The Computational Brain (1992) co-authored by and Terrence Sejnowski, which explores how neural networks perform computations analogous to those in artificial systems, bridging philosophy and . Their collaborative work in the 1990s, including Paul Churchland's A Neurocomputational Perspective (1989), emphasized state-space analysis of neural manifolds—low-dimensional trajectories within high-dimensional neural activity spaces—to model dynamic cognitive processes like learning and . The Churchlands' ideas profoundly influenced neurophilosophy by promoting an empirical turn in the discipline, encouraging philosophers to ground abstract debates in neuroscientific data and computational models, as evidenced by the field's growth following Patricia Churchland's 1986 manifesto. Recent advancements in deep learning have prompted reevaluations of their framework, with analogies drawn between state-space semantics and autoencoder architectures that learn latent representations in high-dimensional data, highlighting prescient parallels to modern neural network dynamics.

Other Neurophilosophers

Daniel Dennett (1942–2024), an American philosopher and cognitive scientist, significantly influenced neurophilosophy through his materialist account of consciousness, rejecting traditional notions of a unified "theater" in the mind. In his 1991 book Consciousness Explained, Dennett proposed the multiple drafts model, which posits that consciousness arises from multiple, parallel neural processes that compete and integrate without a central coordinator, thus explaining subjective experience as a distributed, interpretive phenomenon rather than an illusory Cartesian theater. This model aligns with empirical findings from neuroscience, emphasizing how perceptual contents are edited and probed over time to produce what feels like seamless awareness. David Chalmers, an Australian-American philosopher, is renowned for articulating the "hard problem" of consciousness, which questions why physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience or qualia, distinct from easier problems like behavioral functions. In his 1996 paper "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness," Chalmers argues that no amount of physical description can fully explain the experiential aspect, challenging reductive materialism. He advocates naturalistic dualism, a position holding that consciousness involves fundamental properties beyond physics but still governed by natural laws, allowing mental states to supervene on physical ones without reducing to them. Andy Clark, a British philosopher and cognitive scientist, extends neurophilosophical inquiry into the boundaries of through the , co-developed with in 1998. This thesis contends that cognitive processes are not confined to the brain but incorporate external tools and environments when they function as integrated parts of the cognitive system, such as notebooks serving as memory aids. Clark further integrates this with predictive processing frameworks, viewing the brain as a engine that anticipates sensory inputs to minimize errors, thereby shaping and action in embodied, environmentally embedded ways. Owen Flanagan, an American philosopher, bridges neurophilosophy and by advocating a naturalistic approach to , informed by . In works like Varieties of Moral Personality: Ethics and Psychological Realism (1991), Flanagan examines how empirical studies of brain function and personality reveal the realistic constraints on ethical ideals, urging philosophers to incorporate neuroscientific data for grounded theories of virtue and character. Kathleen Akins, a Canadian philosopher, offers critical perspectives on sensory within neurophilosophy, challenging assumptions about the representational content of perceptual experiences. In her 1996 paper "Of Sensory Systems and the 'Aboutness' of Mental States," Akins critiques overly simplistic models of by analyzing neuroscientific details of , arguing that are not intrinsic, content-free properties but emerge from complex, function-specific neural mechanisms that resist easy philosophical abstraction. Jaegwon Kim (1934–2019), a Korean-American philosopher, addressed in neurophilosophy, particularly failures of mental properties to neatly on physical ones without causal implications. In Mind in a Physical World (1998), Kim argued that leads to causal exclusion problems, where mental states appear epiphenomenal if they do not reduce to neural bases, thus questioning the viability of in explaining mind-body relations.

Emerging Areas

Neuroethics

Neuroethics examines the ethical implications of neuroscientific discoveries and technologies, particularly how they intersect with philosophical questions about human agency, identity, and societal norms. Within neurophilosophy, it addresses how advances in science challenge traditional ethical frameworks, such as and , by revealing the neural underpinnings of and . This field emerged prominently in the early 2000s, driven by rapid progress in and neurointervention techniques, prompting debates on whether should inform or reform ethical and legal practices. A central concern in neuroethics is , where pharmacological agents like are used to boost cognitive functions such as alertness and , raising philosophical questions about the authenticity of the enhanced self. Critics argue that such enhancements could undermine by altering core neural processes that define individuality, potentially leading to a diminished sense of . For instance, enhancements might erode the perceived genuineness of achievements, blurring the line between natural abilities and artificial augmentation. Similarly, moral enhancement through non-invasive , such as , aims to improve by modulating neural circuits involved in and impulse control, but it sparks debates on whether such interventions coerce or respect voluntary . Seminal work highlights that while these techniques show promise in altering moral attitudes, their ethical desirability hinges on balancing potential societal benefits against risks to personal autonomy. Privacy issues arise prominently with brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), exemplified by Neuralink's implantable devices, with trials beginning in 2024 and at least 12 implants as of 2025, which collect and transmit neural data for therapeutic and augmentative purposes. These technologies risk violating mental by enabling unauthorized access to thoughts and intentions, necessitating robust protections for neural data akin to genetic information. In research, processes must address the unique vulnerabilities of brain scans, which could inadvertently reveal sensitive psychological traits; frameworks like the Open Brain Consent emphasize dynamic, ongoing consent to safeguard participant amid evolving data uses. These concerns underscore the philosophical tension between scientific progress and the right to . Neuroscientific insights into neural determinism also impact concepts of responsibility, particularly in , where evidence of brain-based influences on behavior challenges retributive punishment models. In their 2004 analysis, Greene and Cohen argue that neuroscience reveals moral judgments, such as those in scenarios, as products of intuitive emotional processes rather than rational deliberation, suggesting a shift toward consequentialist legal approaches that prioritize prevention over retribution. This implicates debates by implying that diminished neural capacity could mitigate culpability in offenses. By 2025, the has advanced ethical guidelines through its Neuroethics Working Group, emphasizing rigorous standards for subjects and addressing equity in access. In 2025, discussions at the International Neuroethics Society meeting and the Dana Foundation's essay contest highlighted emerging ethical challenges from brain organoids, questioning their potential for rudimentary and implications for moral status. Ongoing debates on AI-neural hybrids highlight risks to identity and , with calls for international regulations to prevent misuse in hybrid systems that blend biological and artificial cognition.

AI and Phenomenology Integration

Neurophilosophy has increasingly engaged with (AI), particularly architectures, as models inspired by neural processes in the . Pioneering work by and in the 1980s and 1990s emphasized connectionist networks as a bridge between computational modeling and function, laying groundwork for contemporary systems that mimic hierarchical feature extraction in visual and cognitive processing. In recent discussions, this -inspired approach prompts philosophical inquiries into machine , questioning whether layered neural networks could instantiate subjective experience or merely simulate it without . For instance, debates center on whether AI systems exhibit genuine or reduce to pattern-matching, challenging eliminativist views in neurophilosophy that dismiss folk-psychological concepts in favor of neural mechanisms. A key integration arises through phenomenology, which introduces first-person methodologies to complement third-person data. Francisco Varela's neurophenomenology framework, drawing on Husserlian reduction, advocates for disciplined subjective reports to constrain and enrich empirical findings, addressing the by correlating experiential structures with brain activity. This approach extends to enactive cognition, as articulated by , where mind emerges from embodied sensorimotor interactions rather than isolated computation, influencing AI designs that incorporate environmental coupling for more . Such phenomenological tools enable neurophilosophers to probe subjectivity in AI, evaluating whether machine "experiences" align with human enaction. Current trends highlight the fusion of phenomenological methods with neural imaging to capture subjectivity, such as integrating qualia reports—first-person descriptions of sensory experiences—with (fMRI) data. Studies have used this to map relational similarities in color qualia, revealing brain patterns that correlate with subjective judgments and advancing neurophenomenological validation. In AI ethics, neurophilosophy informs critiques of biases in neural networks, where algorithmic stereotypes mirror neural stereotypes in human , such as implicit racial biases amplified through training data akin to amygdala-driven social processing. This intersection calls for ethical frameworks that draw on sciences to mitigate harms in AI deployment. By 2025, advances in large language models (LLMs) have intensified neurophilosophical debates on and predictive minds. LLMs demonstrate predictive processing akin to Bayesian brain theories, generating language by anticipating contexts much like neural hierarchies minimize prediction errors, yet they lack biological embodiment, raising questions about derived versus intrinsic . These models outperform humans in forecasting outcomes, suggesting potential for simulating predictive but underscoring gaps in phenomenal awareness. Neurophilosophers thus explore whether LLMs embody a form of extended mind, integrating phenomenological insights to assess if such systems could evolve toward conscious-like states.

References

  1. https://patriciachurchland.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2007-Neurophilosophy-the-Early-Years.pdf
  2. https://www.jneurophilosophy.com/index.php/jnp/article/view/3
  3. https://undark.org/2019/08/02/neuroscience-morality-conscience-patricia-churchland/
  4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroscience/
  5. https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/4792/NeurophilosophyToward-a-Unified-Science-of-the
  6. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262530859/neurophilosophy/
  7. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/paul-churchland/empiricism-and-state-space-semantics/1DFEC249CED16330799B4C45A287FBFF
  8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16226591/
  9. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/
  10. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/
  11. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/
  12. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes/
  13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12122804/
  14. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8559310/
  15. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Broca/aphemie-e.htm
  16. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychophysics/
  17. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/
  18. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/neuroscience/
  19. https://books.google.com/books/about/Consciousness_Explained.html?id=d2P_QS6AwgoC
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5101945/
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24726580/
  22. https://arxiv.org/html/2408.14811v1
  23. https://www.jneurophilosophy.com/
  24. https://philosophymindscience.org/index.php/phimisci/article/view/9151
  25. https://www.brown.edu/news/2025-09-04/ai-human-learning
  26. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1956.tb00560.x
  27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2182164
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6712987/
  29. https://academic.oup.com/book/3354/chapter/144438526
  30. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiple-realizability/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7305066/
  32. https://www.psychologie.uni-heidelberg.de/ae/allg/mitarb/ms/crick90.pdf
  33. https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(23)00337-9
  34. https://bmcneurosci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2202-5-42
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8770991/
  36. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08888-1
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36630828/
  38. https://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf
  39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6640273/
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6640273
  41. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23273798.2016.1267782
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1359523/
  43. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/
  44. https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/4424/Parallel-Distributed-Processing-Volume
  45. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674510302
  46. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2787
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2666703/
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229445001_Philosophical_Issues_in_Neuroimaging
  49. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/23/10/3963
  50. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538909/
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11120557/
  52. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/positron-emission-tomography-pet
  53. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31167104/
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1815485/
  55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627319305999
  56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15165371/
  57. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16406760/
  58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10354573/
  59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9345501/
  60. https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613%2899%2901329-7
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC497229/
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006899371903581
  63. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.98.2.676
  64. https://patriciachurchland.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Neurophilosophy.pdf
  65. https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/jphysiol.1952.sp004764
  66. https://www.nature.com/articles/323533a0
  67. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.95.24.14529
  68. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-022-09877-8
  69. https://marksprevak.com/publications/philosophical-issues-in-computational-cognitive-sciences-06dd/
  70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2183914
  71. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2025900
  72. https://iep.utm.edu/connectionism-cognition/
  73. https://www.jneurophilosophy.com/index.php/jnp/announcement/view/44
  74. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262560252/the-modularity-of-mind/
  75. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.37303405110
  76. https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4462/Elbow-RoomThe-Varieties-of-Free-Will-Worth-Wanting
  77. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2017.00431/full
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4887467/
  79. https://neurosciencenews.com/libet-free-will-23756/
  80. https://phys.org/news/2025-07-free.html
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6710585/
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188
  83. https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2025/1/niaf011/8127081
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12475526/
  85. https://www.sburover.it/psice/psicologia/valutazione_cognitiva/Dibattito_sulla_neuroimmagine.pdf
  86. https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/personal/rik.henson/personal/Henson_TICS_06_preprint.pdf
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0093934X9190132K
  88. https://aalfredoardila.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2010-ardila-a-proposed-reinterpretation-of-aphasia.pdf
  89. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ergo/12405314.0006.028/--consciousness-science-underdetermined-a-short-history?rgn=main;view=fulltext
  90. https://www.sfu.ca/~kathleea/docs/Neurophilosophy.pdf
  91. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262530743/matter-and-consciousness/
  92. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262531429/the-engine-of-reason-the-seat-of-the-soul/
  93. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-022-03694-y
  94. https://philpapers.org/rec/DENCE
  95. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Multiple_drafts_model
  96. https://philpapers.org/rec/CHAND
  97. https://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/clark-chalmers-1998.pdf
  98. https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~karl/Whatever%2520next.pdf
  99. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-97162-000
  100. https://www.sfu.ca/~kathleea/docs/SensorySystems.pdf
  101. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262611534/mind-in-a-physical-world/
  102. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroethics/
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5028939/
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5319982/
  105. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-15-67
  106. https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/bioethics/article/view/14149
  107. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-dynamics/articles/10.3389/fhumd.2025.1553905/full
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11951885/
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8046140/
  110. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/musks-neuralink-says-12-people-have-received-its-implants-2025-09-09/
  111. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15590618/
  112. http://braininitiative.nih.gov/vision/nih-brain-initiative-reports/brain-20-neuroethics-enabling-and-enhancing-neuroscience
  113. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11524843/
  114. https://neuroethicssociety.org/meeting/neuroethics-2025/
  115. https://dana.org/article/2025-neuroethics-contest-winners-announced/
  116. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-024-04723-8
  117. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-022-01474-3
  118. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02046-9
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.