Advertisement

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 249–257 | Cite as

A matter of facts

  • DorothÉe Legrand
  • Franck Grammont
Article

Abstract

We discuss the justification of Bickle's “ruthless” reductionism. Bickle intends to show that we know enough about neurons to draw conclusions about the “whole” brain and about the mind. However, his reductionism does not take into account the complexity of the nervous system and the fact that new properties emerge at each significant level of integration from the coupled functioning of elementary components. From a methodological point of view, we argue that neuronal and cognitive models have to exert a mutual constraint(MC) on each other. This approach would refuse to award any priority of cognitive approaches over neuroscience, and reciprocally, to refuse any priority of neuroscience over cognitive approaches. MC thus argues against radicalreductionism at the methodological level.

Key Words

reductionism mutual constraint emergence integration levels of analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bickle, J. 2003. Philosophy and Neuroscience: A Ruthlessly Reductive Account. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Churchland, P. S. 1995. Can neurobiology teach us anything about consciousness? Unpublished paper based on her Presidential Address to the American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division, March, 1993, published in Proceedings and Addresses of the APA (1994). http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/church.neuro.html.
  3. Georgopoulos, A. P., Schwartz, A. B. and Kettner, R. E. 1986. Neuronal population coding of movement direction. Science 233(4771): 1416–1419.Google Scholar
  4. Grammont, F. and Riehle, A. 2003. Spike synchronization and firing rate in a population of motor cortical neurons in relation to movement direction and reaction time. Biol. Cybern. 88(5): 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hooker, C. A. 1981. Towards a general theory of reduction. Dialogue 20: 38–59, 201–236, 496–529.Google Scholar
  6. Reichenbach, H. 1957. The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Requin, J. 1987. Les neurosciences cognitives: Au-delà du réductionnisme, une science de synthèse? In: M. Siguan (ed.), Comportement, Cognition, Conscience (31–57). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  8. Roll, J. P. and Roll, R. 1993. Le sentiment d'incarnation: arguments neurobiologiques. Rev. Méd. Psychosom. 35: 75–90.Google Scholar
  9. Van Gulick, R. 1995. What would count as explaining consciousness? In: T. Metzinger (ed.), Conscious Experience (pp. 61–79). Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEPERC, Département de PhilosophieUniversité de ProvenceFrance

Personalised recommendations