Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):831-831 (1999)
A biological neuroscientific theory must acknowledge that the function of a neurological system is to produce behaviors that promote survival. Thus, unlike what Gold & Stoljar claim, function and behavior are the province of neurobiology and cannot be relegated to the field of psychological phenomena, which would then trivialize the radical doctrine if accepted. One possible advantage of adopting such a (correctly revised) radical doctrine is that it might ultimately produce a successful, evolutionarily based, theory of mind.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
On Biological and Cognitive Neuroscience.Daniel Stoljar & Ian Gold - 1998 - Mind and Language 13 (1):110-31.
Neuron Doctrine: Trivial Versus Radical Versus Do Not Dichotomize.Barry Horwitz - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):839-840.
Interpreting Neuroscience and Explaining the Mind.Ian Gold & Daniel Stoljar - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):856-866.
The Churchlands' Neuron Doctrine: Both Cognitive and Reductionist.John Sutton - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):850-851.
The Nontrivial Doctrine of Cognitive Neuroscience.Valerie Gray Hardcastle - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):839-839.
Why Biological Neuroscience Cannot Replace Psychology.Nick Chater - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):834-834.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #236,877 of 2,169,066 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #346,364 of 2,169,066 )
How can I increase my downloads?