Could the neural ABC explain the mind?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2):311-312 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Gold & Stoljar are right in rejecting the radical neuron doctrine, but we argue that their distinction between determination and explanation is not principled enough to support their conclusion. We claim that the notions of multiple supervenience and screening-off offer a more precise construal of the dissociation between explanation and determination that lies at the heart of the antireductionist position.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,140

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Supervenience and qualia.Ken Mogi - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):844-845.
Levels of description and conflated doctrines.John A. Bullinaria - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):832-833.
How trivial is the “trivial neuron doctrine”?Steven G. Daniel - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):834-835.
Interpreting neuroscience and explaining the mind.Ian Gold & Daniel Stoljar - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):856-866.
The “trivial neuron doctrine” is not trivial.Dale Jamieson - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):841-842.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
38 (#309,016)

6 months
1 (#447,993)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Maurice Schouten
Last affiliation: Tilburg University

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references