David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):856-866 (1999)
Although a wide variety of questions were raised about different aspects of the target article, most of them fall into one of five categories each of which deals with a general question. These questions are (1) Is the radical neuron doctrine really radical? (2) Is the trivial neuron doctrine really trivial? (3) Were we sufficiently critical of the radical neuron doctrine? (4) Is there a distinction to be drawn at all between the two doctrines? and (5) How does our argument bear on related issues in the ontology of mind? Our replies to the objections and observations presented are organized around these five questions.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
John A. Bullinaria (1999). Levels of Description and Conflated Doctrines. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):832-833.
Frank Jackson (1999). A Slightly Radical Neuron Doctrine. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):840-841.
Nick Chater (1999). Why Biological Neuroscience Cannot Replace Psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):834-834.
J. Scott Jordan (1999). “Mind is Brain” is Trivial and Nonscientific in Both Neurobiology and Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):842-842.
Barry Horwitz (1999). Neuron Doctrine: Trivial Versus Radical Versus Do Not Dichotomize. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):839-840.
James Fahey & Michael Zenzen (1999). Reductionism and the Neuron Doctrine: A Metaphysical Fix of Gold & Stoljar's Trivial–Radical Distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):835-836.
J. Tim O'Meara (1999). Begging the Question of Causation in a Critique of the Neuron Doctrine. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):846-846.
Joe Y. F. Lau (1999). A More Substantive Neuron Doctrine. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):843-844.
Valerie Gray Hardcastle (1999). The Nontrivial Doctrine of Cognitive Neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):839-839.
Steven G. Daniel (1999). How Trivial is the “Trivial Neuron Doctrine”? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):834-835.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #43,793 of 1,102,513 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #85,420 of 1,102,513 )
How can I increase my downloads?