This special issue is dedicated to one of the oldest and most controversial philosophical topics, the mind–body problem. Paradoxically, since Descartes until the present days, nobody has proposed a viable solution to this problem. In the last decades, through the unification of neuroscience and psychology, a new science, cognitive neuroscience, was created to deal with this problem. Using EEG, fMRI, and other apparatus, scientists try to grasp the “correlations” between any mental state and some neural patterns of activation. Articles and (...) presentations on the “brain imaging” results (mainly using fMRI) have invaded journals and conferences. There are many optimists (with some quite remarkable results) and few skeptics regarding these results in cognitive neuroscience. Anyway, there are exciting times ahead for people working in this interdisciplinary field. (shrink)

Many people argue that history makes a special difference to the subjects of biology and psychology, and that history does not make this special difference to other parts of the world. This paper will show that historical properties make no more or less of a difference to biology or psychology than to chemistry, physics, or other sciences. Although historical properties indeed make a certain kind of difference to biology and psychology, this paper will show that historical properties make the same (...) kind of difference to geology, sociology, astronomy, and other sciences. Similarly, many people argue that nonhistorical properties make a special difference to the nonbiological and the nonpsychological world. This paper will show that nonhistorical properties make the same difference to all things in the world when it comes to their causal behavior and that historical properties make the same difference to all things in the world when it comes to their distributions. Although history is special, it is special in the same way to all parts of the world. (shrink)

Résumé: La conscience est toujours conscience de quelque chose, généralement une chose autre qu’elle-même - mais quelle sorte de chose est donc la conscience, considérée en et pour elle-même? Naguère redoutable paradoxe qu’une science sérieuse abandonnait volontiers aux philosophes, la conscience a-t-elle été ramenée finalement à la condition d’un objet de science parmi les autres? Le développement d’une nouvelle «neuroscience de la conscience» depuis une vingtaine d’années est souvent présenté comme une avancée naturelle pour une science forte de son succès (...) dans l’explication des fonctions cognitives sur la base des mécanismes neuronaux du cerveau humain. Conçue, elle aussi, originairement, comme «science de la conscience», mais sur la base de l’immanence du sujet conscient à sa propre expérience vécue, la phénoménologie doit-elle réfréner son sens du paradoxe devant le projet de cette neuroscience de la conscience, pour ne pas être accusée d’irrationalisme? Faisant retour sur le dialogue Changeux-Ricœur, je relève les objections du phénoménologue à l’objectivation de notre expérience de la conscience sur la base de mécanismes corrélatifs dans le cerveau et j’examine sur l’exemple représentatif de la théorie neuronale de Changeux, Dehaene et al. dans quelle mesure cette critique phénoménologique garde une pertinence. Resumo: A consciência é sempre consciência de algo, geralmente algo diferente de si - mas que tipo de coisa é a consciência, considerada em si mesma? Paradoxo a pouco tempo temido de que uma ciência séria se entrega de bom grado aos filósofos, será que a consciência foi finalmente reduzida à condição de um objeto da ciência, dentre os demais? O desenvolvimento de uma nova “neurociência da consciência” por cerca de vinte anos é frequentemente apresentado como um avanço natural para uma ciência segura de seu sucesso na explicação de funções cognitivas baseadas nos mecanismos neurais do cérebro humano. Concebida, também, originalmente como uma “ciência da consciência”, mas com base na imanência do sujeito consciente à sua própria experiência vivida, a fenomenologia deve refrear seu sentido de paradoxo frente ao projeto da neurociência da consciência, para não ser acusada de irracionalismo? Retornando ao diálogo Changeux-Ricoeur, considero a crítica da objetivação fenomenológica da nossa experiência de consciência com base em mecanismos internos ao cérebro, e examino o exemplo representativo da teoria neuronal de Changeux e Dehaene et al., para avaliar até que ponto a crítica fenomenológica permanece relevante. (shrink)

The present paper was written as a contribution to ongoing methodological debates within the NCC project. We focus on the neural correlates of conscious perceptual episodes. Our claim is that the NCC notion, as applied to conscious perceptual episodes, needs to be reconceptualized. It mixes together the processing related to the perceived contents and the neural substrate of consciousness proper, i.e. mechanisms making the perceptual contents conscious. We thus propose that the perceptual NCC be divided into two constitutive subnotions. The (...) main theoretical idea that emerges as a consequence of this reconceptualization is that the neural correlate of a perceptual episode is formed in the neural interaction between content-processing and consciousness-conferring mechanisms. The paper elaborates this distinction, marshals some initial arguments in its favour, and tests it against some of the most debated theories of consciousness. (shrink)

Disorders of consciousness include coma, the vegetative state and the minimally conscious state. Such patients are often regarded as unconscious. This has consequences for end of life decisions for these patients: it is much easier to justify withdrawing life support for unconscious than conscious patients. Recent brain imaging research has however suggested that some patients may in fact be conscious.

In their target article, Lynch, Parke, and O’Malley argue against the quick application of causal, interventionist explanatory frameworks to microbiomes and their purported role in many disparate states, from obesity to anxiety. I think the authors have undersold the force of their argument. A careful consideration of the scope of their claims, made easier by a parallel drawn from the history of explanation in neuroscience, yields a productive pessimism: that causal explanations likely operate at the wrong level of analysis for (...) dynamic, distributed, Quineian entities like the microbiome. That is, we shouldn’t expect causal explanations for microbiomes at all—and this includes the authors’ own “microbiome success story” of C. difficile. Neuroscience, with its own computationally challenging, dynamic entity—the brain—may provide lessons for how to approach something like predictive control over the microbiome. (shrink)

In this chapter, Pautz raises a puzzle about spatial experience for phenomenal internalists like Ned Block. If an accidental, lifelong brain-in-the-void (BIV) should have all the same experiences as you, it would have an experience as of items having various shapes, and be able to acquire concepts of those shapes, despite being cut off from real things with the shapes. Internalists cannot explain this by saying that BIV is presented with Peacocke-style visual field regions having various shapes, because these would (...) have to be non-physical sense data. They might instead explain this by saying that BIV “phenomenally represents” various shape properties. But since BIV lacks any interesting physical relations to shapes, this would imply that phenomenally representation is an irreducible relation. (shrink)