David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Mind 114 (454):391-394 (2005)
In this long and detailed book Bennett and Hacker set themselves two ambitious tasks. The first is to offer a philosophical critique of, what they argue are, philosophical confusions within contemporary cognitive neuroscience. The second is to present a ‘conceptual reference work for cognitive neuroscientists who wish to check the contour lines of the psychological concept relevant to their investigation’ (p.7). In the process they cover an astonishing amount of material. The first two chapters present a critical history of neuroscience from Aristotle to Sherrington, Eccles and Penfield. Chapter three (to which I shall return), offers the philosophical basis for much of the book. Chapters four to twelve present detailed philosophical criticisms of a wide variety of neuroscientists (and some philosophers) on a large number of topics. These include: Crick, Damasio, Edelman, Marr and Frisby on perception (particularly the primary/secondary quality distinction and the binding problem); Milner, Squire and Kandel on memory; Blakemore and others on mental imagery; LaDoux and Damasio on the emotions; Libet on voluntary movement; and Baars, Crick, Edelman, Damasio, Penrose, Searle, Chalmers, and Nagel on consciousness (with a great deal on qualia and self-consciousness). Chapters thirteen and fourteen, along with the two appendices, contain an elaboration and defence of the book’s methodology and present explicit contrasts with the Churchlands, Dennett and Searle. Bennett and Hacker maintain that whilst neuroscientists have made significant discoveries concerning the workings of the brain, these discoveries have been obscured by their presentation within an incoherent conceptual framework. Their complaints, therefore, are often not with neuroscience itself but with what might be called its philosophical self image.
|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
Jonathan Trigg & Michael Kalish (2011). Explaining How the Mind Works: On the Relation Between Cognitive Science and Philosophy. Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2):399-424.
Similar books and articles
M. R. Bennett (2003). Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Blackwell Pub..
P. M. S. Hacker & M. R. Bennett (2003). Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Machiel Keestra & Stephen J. Cowley (2011). Concepts – Not Just Yardsticks, but Also Heuristics: Rebutting Hacker and Bennett. Language Sciences 33 (3):464-472.
David Hodgson (2005). Goodbye to Qualia and All That? Review Article. Journal of Consciousness Studies 12 (2):84-88.
M. Bennett, D. C. Dennett, P. M. S. Hacker & J. R. & Searle (eds.) (2007). Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind, and Language. Columbia University Press.
Dennis Patterson, Book Review, Max Bennett and Peter Hacker, Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. [REVIEW]
Greg Janzen (2008). Bennett and Hacker on Neural Materialism. Acta Analytica 23 (3):273-286.
Dennis Patterson (2003). Review of M.R. Bennett, P.M.S. Hacker, Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2003 (9).
Daniel C. Dennett (2007). Philosophy as Naive Anthropology: Comment on Bennett and Hacker. In M. Bennett, D. C. Dennett, P. M. S. Hacker & J. R. & Searle (eds.), Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind, and Language. Columbia University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads76 ( #19,402 of 1,100,087 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #51,435 of 1,100,087 )
How can I increase my downloads?