» » Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind, and Language

Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind, and Language ePub download

by Maxwell Bennett,Daniel Dennett,Peter Hacker,John Searle,Daniel Robinson

  • Author: Maxwell Bennett,Daniel Dennett,Peter Hacker,John Searle,Daniel Robinson
  • ISBN: 0231140452
  • ISBN13: 978-0231140454
  • ePub: 1628 kb | FB2: 1574 kb
  • Language: English
  • Category: Medicine
  • Publisher: Columbia University Press; 1 edition (April 1, 2009)
  • Pages: 232
  • Rating: 4.1/5
  • Votes: 874
  • Format: mbr rtf txt azw
Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind, and Language ePub download

Maxwell Bennett and Peter Hacker, arguing for the existence of a human consciousness residing in the whole person, are taken on by Daniel Dennett and John Searle, who argue that the locus and milieu of consciousness lies solely in the brain.

Maxwell Bennett and Peter Hacker, arguing for the existence of a human consciousness residing in the whole person, are taken on by Daniel Dennett and John Searle, who argue that the locus and milieu of consciousness lies solely in the brain. With an introduction and arguably biased conclusion by Daniel Robinson, this concise but informative book must be admired for its detail and descriptive character. Debates between weak and strong emergence abound: are we reducible to our component parts, or is there a complex confluence at work that produces consciousness?

If Daniel Dennett and John Searle are right, philosophical psychology is about to. .

If Daniel Dennett and John Searle are right, philosophical psychology is about to be superannuated by a scientific breakthrough in the study of the mind. If Bennett and Hacker are right, then much of cognitive neuroscience is not sound science but muddled philosophy. Neuroscience and Philosophy begins with an excerpt from Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, in which Maxwell Bennett and Peter Hacker question the conceptual commitments of cognitive neuroscientists. Daniel Dennett and John Searle then criticize their position, and Bennett and Hacker respond.

Neuroscience and philosophy. Maxwell bennett, daniel dennett, Peter hacker, john searle. With an Introduction and Conclusion by Daniel Robinson. Columbia University Press New York. Columbia University Press.

Request PDF On Dec 1, 2009, Daniel Lim and others published Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain .

Do Brain Decoders Have an Ontological Mind of Their Own? Response to Nikolas Rose. July 2019 · Body & Society.

Daniel Dennett and John Searle then criticize their position, and .

Daniel Dennett and John Searle then criticize their position, and Bennett and Hacker respond. His most recent books are History of the Synapse, The Idea of Consciousness, and Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, which he coauthored with Peter Hacker.

Full recovery of all data can take up to 2 weeks! So we came to the decision at this time to double the download limits for all users until the problem is completely resolved. Categories: Linguistics

Neuroscience and Philosophy book

Neuroscience and Philosophy book. The book begins with an excerpt from Maxwell Bennett and Peter Hacker's Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience (Blackwell, 2003), which questions the conceptual commitments of cognitive neuroscientists. Their position is then criticized by Daniel Dennett and John Searle, two philosophers who have written extensively on the subject, and Bennett and Hacker in turn respond.

Maxwell R. Bennett, Daniel C. Dennett, Peter Hacker, John Searle. Place of Publication. Introduction by. Daniel N. Robinson. Daniel Dennett is Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy and director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.

In Neuroscience and Philosophy three prominent philosophers and a leading neuroscientist clash over the conceptual presuppositions of cognitive neuroscience. The book begins with an excerpt from Maxwell Bennett and Peter Hacker's Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience (Blackwell, 2003), which questions the conceptual commitments of cognitive neuroscientists. Their position is then criticized by Daniel Dennett and John Searle, two philosophers who have written extensively on the subject, and Bennett and Hacker in turn respond.Their impassioned debate encompasses a wide range of central themes: the nature of consciousness, the bearer and location of psychological attributes, the intelligibility of so-called brain maps and representations, the notion of qualia, the coherence of the notion of an intentional stance, and the relationships between mind, brain, and body. Clearly argued and thoroughly engaging, the authors present fundamentally different conceptions of philosophical method, cognitive-neuroscientific explanation, and human nature, and their exchange will appeal to anyone interested in the relation of mind to brain, of psychology to neuroscience, of causal to rational explanation, and of consciousness to self-consciousness.In his conclusion Daniel Robinson (member of the philosophy faculty at Oxford University and Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Georgetown University) explains why this confrontation is so crucial to the understanding of neuroscientific research. The project of cognitive neuroscience, he asserts, depends on the incorporation of human nature into the framework of science itself. In Robinson's estimation, Dennett and Searle fail to support this undertaking; Bennett and Hacker suggest that the project itself might be based on a conceptual mistake. Exciting and challenging, Neuroscience and Philosophy is an exceptional introduction to the philosophical problems raised by cognitive neuroscience.
Thordira
Great idea to join an analytic philosopher and a neural scientist to argue their case with other philosophers. Good introduction to Wittgenstein and his philosophical investigations.
SadLendy
A helpful summary of the views of distinguished authors concerning the importance of a broadly Wittgensteinean perspective on neuroscience.
sergant
A lively and current debate about how philosophers and scientists talk about the mind/brain.
Raelin
So the concept of the book is a good one. Usually you end up with one author's opinion and he is responsible for summing up and responding to his opponents' works; having some of that dialogue in the same place seems interesting, and the individuals contributing are worthwhile.

Unfortunately the whole thing feels a bit stitched together. I'm left with a puzzle that, despite finished, fails to fit together in a satisfactory manner as well as a distinct impression that everyone was talking past and misunderstanding each other.

There are insightful nuggets, of course. But you'd be better off getting them from the authors' individual works rather than trying to parse through this cluttered compilation.

It's possible some of my disappointment stems from how expensive such a short book was, for full disclosure :)
superstar
The book is about 2/3 Bennett and 1/3 others. I wish Hacker had written more sections, as his arguments made a lot more sense and brought in the more scientific aspects, but he only wrote two short sections. Dennett and Searle only wrote short sections, about 20 pages each. Their higher-profile names have been used to boost this Bennett's insignificant stinker of a book.

Bennet's arguments are pretty laughable and out-of-touch. He bases his arguments on Wittgensteinian simple language philosophy, but seems to be completely out of touch with the current state of the neuroscientific community. He will argue that sentences like, for example, "The brain remembers the number." are logically incoherent. He can't seem to grasp the idea that brains really DO remember things, reason about things, etc. Or he's just one of these dunce philosophers with no real argument who instead acts incredulous about opposing arguments and hopes that the audience just agrees with him. He also repeats himself and does nothing, as far as I can see, to refute Dennet's or Searle's arguments.

Don't waste your time. Buy one of Dennett's or Searle's books.
Snowskin
An interesting book which is mostly about philosophy, neuroscience and critical theory. This book is of little interest to people tortured by psychotronic "mind control".
Brick my own
Granted, Bennett and Hacker were the impetus behind this book's creation, but I feel they could have allowed more back-and-forth with Dennett and Searle, their two primary interlocutors. Instead, they republish sections of their own original arguments to give some context to Dennett and Searles' responses, which don't differ except in tone from their positions at the conference from which the book came. Then the book grants Bennett and Hacker another answer (composed, so far as I could tell, of almost willful misreadings of Searle's and Dennetts' criticisms), then a conclusion from a "referee" who, naturally, mostly judges them to have come out ahead in the argument. I expected more interlocution, but instead it seems to be a vehicle for Hacker and Bennett's position.
The Introduction to this 2007 book states, "Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, by Max Bennett and Peter Hacker, was published ... in 2003... it was the first systematic evaluation of the conceptual foundations of neuroscience, as these foundations had been laid by scientists and philosophers... In the fall of 2004 Bennett and Hacker were invited by the... American Philosophical Association to participate in an 'Authors and Critics' session at the 2005 meeting... The choice of critics could not have been better: Daniel Dennett and John Searle had agreed to write replies to the criticisms levied against their work by Bennett and Hacker. The contents of this present volume are based on that three-hour APA session." (Pg. vii)

Bennett and Hacker state in their own Introduction, "We have written this book in admiration for the achievements of twentieth-century neuroscience, and out of a desire to assist the subject... we have tried to identify conceptual problems and entanglements in important current theories ... Moreover, we argue that much contemporary writing on the nature of consciousness and self-consciousness is bedeviled by conceptual difficulties. This aspect of our investigations is indeed negative and critical. On the other hand, we have endeavoured... to provide a perspicuous representation of the conceptual field of each of the problematic concepts. This is a constructive endeavour." (Pg. 13)

They assert, "The question we are confronting is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. It calls for conceptual clarification, not for experimental investigation. One cannot investigate experimentally whether brains do or do not think, believe, guess, reason, form hypotheses, etc., until one knows what it would be for a brain to do so..." (Pg. 19)

Dennett argues, "The authors claim that just about everybody in cognitive neuroscience is committing a rather simple conceptual howler. I say dismiss all charges until the authors come through with some details worth considering... they offer no positive theories or models or suggestions about how such theories or models might be constructed, of course, since that would be not the province of philosophy... Explanation has to stop somewhere, as Wittgenstein said, but not here... On the strength of this showing, one can see why the neuroscientists are so unimpressed." (Pg. 95)

Searle charges, "I believe that the vision they present of neurobiology and the mind is profoundly mistaken and potentially harmful. Many of the crucial questions we need to ask in philosophy and neuroscience would be outlawed by their approach. For example, What are the ... neuronal correlates of consciousness and how exactly do they cause consciousness?... Indeed, a huge number of central questions in neurobiological research would be rejected as meaningless or incoherent if their proposals were accepted... This is one of those cases, like strong AI, where a mistaken philosophical theory can have potentially disastrous scientific consequences, and that is why I consider it important to answer their claims." (Pg. 124)

This book may be of interest to both students of neuroscience (i.e., those interested in the "roots" of the science) and of the philosophy of mind.
E-Books Related to Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind, and Language: