Advertisement

Biology and Subjectivity: Philosophical Contributions to a Non-reductive Neuroscience

  • José Ignacio Murillo
  • Miguel García-ValdecasasEmail author
  • Nathaniel F. Barrett
Chapter
  • 312 Downloads
Part of the Historical-Analytical Studies on Nature, Mind and Action book series (HSNA, volume 2)

Abstract

In the middle of the twentieth century, Wittgenstein warned that “the method of reducing the explanation of natural phenomena to the smallest possible number of primitive natural laws…leads…into complete darkness” (1958, p. 18). At the time, few philosophers and even fewer scientists were prepared to heed his warning. A half-century later, however, the reductive method of science—the method famously defined by Descartes, brilliantly exemplified by Newtonian physics, and long upheld as the gold standard of scientific explanation—seems to have finally lost its luster. While reduction is still widely defended, in the last decades alternative views have gained credibility, to the extent that a “non-reductive science” is no longer dismissed as an oxymoron.

Keywords

Grand Unify Theory Phenomenological Tradition Aristotelian Concept Physiological Psychologist Affective Agency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barlow, H.B. 1972. Single units and sensation: A neuron doctrine for perceptual psychology? Perception 1: 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, M.R., and P.M.S. Hacker. 2003. Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Bickle, J. 2003. Philosophy and neuroscience: A ruthlessly reductive account. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bullock, T.H., M.V.L. Bennett, D. Johnston, R. Josephson, E. Marder, and R.D. Fields. 2005. The neuron doctrine, redux. Science 310: 791–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chirimuuta, M., and I. Gold. 2009. The embedded neuron, the enactive field? In The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience, ed. J. Bickle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Choudhury, S., and J. Slaby. 2012. Critical neuroscience: A handbook for the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. 1972. The reflex arc concept in psychology. In The early works of John Dewey 1882–1898, Volume 5: 1895–1898, ed. J. Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press (Original work published 1896).Google Scholar
  8. Freeman, W.J. 1999. How brains make up their minds. New York: Colombia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gallagher, S. 2006. How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Guillery, R.W. 2005. Observations of synaptic structures: Origins of the neuron doctrine and its current status. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 1281–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hubel, D.H., and T.N. Wiesel. 1959. Receptive fields of single neurons in the cat’s striate cortex. Journal of Physiology 148: 574–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Juarrero, A. 1999. Dynamics in action: Intentional behavior as a complex system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kauffman, S.A. 2000. Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Keeley, B.L. 2009. The role of neurobiology in differentiating the senses. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience, ed. J. Bickle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kelso, J.A.S. 1995. Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kuffler, S.W. 1953. Discharge patterns and functional organization of mammalian retina. Journal of Neurophysiology 16: 37–68.Google Scholar
  17. Lakatos, I. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, ed. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Langton, R. 2000. The musical, the magical, and the mathematical soul. In History of the mind-body problem, ed. T. Crane and S. Patterson. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Laughlin, R.B. 2005. A different universe: Reinventing physics from the bottom down. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Murphy, N. 2006. Bodies and souls, or spirited bodies? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Noë, A. 2009. Out of our heads: Why you are not your brain, and other lessons from the biology of consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  22. Northoff, R. 2013. Unlocking the brain: Volume 1: Coding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Northoff, R. 2014. Minding the brain: A guide to philosophy and neuroscience. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Nussbaum, M.C., and A.O. Rorty. 1992. Essays on Aristotle’s ‘De Anima’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Putnam, H. 1994. Putnam, Hilary. In A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, ed. S. Guttenplan, 507–513. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Robinson, D.N. 1976. An intellectual history of psychology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Rosen, R. 1991. Life itself: A comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin, and fabrication of life. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sheets-Johnstone, M. 2011. The primacy of movement, expanded, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smolin, L. 2006. The trouble with physics: The rise of string theory, the fall of a science, and what comes next. New York: Mariner.Google Scholar
  30. Thomson, E. 2007. Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Belknap.Google Scholar
  31. Varela, F. 2000. El fenómeno de la vida. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Dolmen.Google Scholar
  32. Weiss, P.A. 1973. The science of life: The system of living—A system for life. New York: Futura.Google Scholar
  33. Wittgenstein, L. 1958. The blue and brown books. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Wolfram, S. 2002. A new kind of science. Champaign: Wolfram Media.Google Scholar
  35. Zahavi, D. 2005. Subjectivity and selfhood: investigating the first-person perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Ignacio Murillo
    • 1
  • Miguel García-Valdecasas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nathaniel F. Barrett
    • 1
  1. 1.Mind-Brain Group, Institute for Culture and Society (ICS)University of NavarraPamplonaSpain

Personalised recommendations