David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Transactions-Royal Society of London. Biological Sciences 360 (1458):1309-1327 (2005)
Neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behaviour generally posits that brain mechanisms will ultimately sufﬁce to explain all psychologically described phenomena. This assumption stems from the idea that the brain is made up entirely of material particles and ﬁelds, and that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience can therefore be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements. Thus, terms having intrinsic mentalistic and/or experiential content (e.g. ‘feeling’, ‘knowing’ and ‘effort’) are not included as primary causal factors. This theoretical restriction is motivated primarily by ideas about the natural world that have been known to be fundamentally incorrect for more than three-quarters of a century. Contemporary basic physical theory differs profoundly from classic physics on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical phenomena. The new principles contradict the older idea that local mechanical processes alone can account for the structure of all observed empirical data. Contemporary physical theory brings directly and irreducibly into the overall causal structure certain psychologically described choices made by human agents about how they will act. This key development in basic physical theory is applicable to neuroscience, and it provides neuroscientists and psychologists with an alternative conceptual framework for describing neural processes. Indeed, owing to certain structural features of ion channels critical to synaptic function, contemporary physical theory must in principle be used when analysing human brain dynamics. The new framework, unlike its classic-physics-based predecessor, is erected directly upon, and is compatible with, the prevailing principles of physics. It is able to represent more adequately than classic concepts the neuroplastic mechanisms relevant to the growing number of empirical studies of the capacity of directed attention and mental effort to systematically alter brain function..
|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
Henry P. Stapp (2006). Quantum Interactive Dualism, II: The Libet and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Causal Anomalies. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 65 (1):117-142.
Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Henry P. Stapp & Mario Beauregard (2005). Quantum Physics in Neuroscience and Psychology: A Neurophysical Model of Mind–Brain Interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360:1309-1327.
Henry P. Stapp (2006). Quantum Interactive Dualism: An Alternative to Materialism. Zygon 41 (3):599-615.
Henry P. Stapp (1999). Attention, Intention, and Will in Quantum Physics. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6 (8-9):8-9.
Henry P. Stapp (2005). Quantum Interactive Dualism - an Alternative to Materialism. Journal of Consciousness Studies 12 (11):43-58.
Giuseppe Vitiello (2001). My Double Unveiled: The Dissipative Quantum Model of Brain. John Benjamins.
Tuomas K. Pernu (2011). Minding Matter: How Not to Argue for the Causal Efficacy of the Mental. Rev Neuroscience 22 (5):483-507.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads548 ( #1,956 of 1,934,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)82 ( #4,861 of 1,934,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?