David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):850-851 (1999)
According to Gold & Stoljar, one cannot consistently be both reductionist about psychoneural relations and invoke concepts developed in the psychological sciences. I deny the utility of their distinction between biological and cognitive neuroscience, suggesting that they construe biological neuroscience too rigidly and cognitive neuroscience too liberally. Then, I reject their characterization of reductionism. Reductions need not go down past neurobiology straight to physics, and cases of partial, local reduction are not neatly distinguishable from cases of mere implementation. Modifying the argument from unification as reduction, I defend a position weaker than the radical but stronger than the trivial neuron doctrine.
|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
Tony Stone & Martin Davies (2000). Autonomous Psychology and the Moderate Neuron Doctrine. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):849-850.
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.
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.
Steven G. Daniel (1999). How Trivial is the “Trivial Neuron Doctrine”? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):834-835.
Ian Gold & Daniel Stoljar (1999). Interpreting Neuroscience and Explaining the Mind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):856-866.
Nick Chater (1999). Why Biological Neuroscience Cannot Replace Psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):834-834.
Dale Jamieson (1999). The “Trivial Neuron Doctrine” is Not Trivial. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):841-842.
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.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #99,829 of 1,692,217 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #33,557 of 1,692,217 )
How can I increase my downloads?