Talk:Neurophilosophy

hep

I could use some help with this if anyone wants to contribute. KSchutte 20:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Clean up and Elaboration

This page needs a lot of cleaning up and elaboration. At the moment, everything posted here is pure speculation. The links and available information posted are inadequate to prove that this is in fact a scientific field of study at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jansandaas (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Added NPOV

"This scientific approach contrasts strongly with idealism, and/or the appeal to the existence of a Platonic soul that thinks, feels and desires." This is a complete misrepresentation of philosophy of mind proponents contrary to neurophilosophy. 189.146.4.89 (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 189.146.4.89 (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's technically accurate. Theories in neurophilosophy do contrast with idealism (nature of reality is based on minds and ideas) as well as Plato's dualism (the immaterial soul/mind is separate from the material body). I agree that it sounds a little biased, so I'm going to take out "scientific", which is implicitly arguing that the facts support neurophilosophy (which may be true, but is beyond the scope of this sentence about contrasts between the approaches). Hopefully this resolves the minor NPOV issue. (It's important to have that contrast; all such contrasts are fundamental if you're taking university-level philosophy of mind, so it should be included in the article.) DoItAgain (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Neurophilosophy and the Churchland's: Planned Update

Troped (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC) says:

I second the idea that neurophilosophy is not in contention with any philosophy of the soul. There aren't any serious 21st century philosophers contending that there is a soul or that it is the source of free will. Neurophilosophy is largely aligned against functionalist theories of cognitive philosophy that want to make use of our folk psychology (our intuitive understanding of things like beliefs and desires). Dennett refers to it as the intentional stance. In fact, I don't think Daniel Dennett should be listed here as a proponent of neurophilosophy either; he is mainly a functionalist. Neurophilosophy is an eliminative reductionist position that contends (in brief) that folk psychology is not a theory and is not true; that the only useful language that can come about to discuss mental states will be one based on an understanding of the fundamental physical characteristics of the brain. I'm currently reading the Churchlands' works and if no one objects I would definitely like to fix this page a bit. Another excellent resource on this matter (for anyone who would like to contribute) is the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (consider reading this passage on eliminative materialism - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/)

Yes, Patricia Churchland and Paul Churchland are more relevant figures than Dennett to neurophilosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a great source. By all means please edit this article. I'll do my best to pitch in over the next few weeks. Shanata (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have added some bits and removed others where I found it necessary. I think I am able to justify these removals, so please inquire if you feel something of the old text is missing.

Prominence of philosophers is redundant and often highly subjective. A list of names has been provided instead.

The rewrite also includes an attempt at adressing the POV dispute. The eliminative materialist view has been eliminated from the article. It is not a central tenet to the philosophy of neuroscience. It may be added later though as an example of a particular viewpoint. Dualist neurophilosophers do exist, for instance: John Carew Eccles. The notice has been kept though.

Ostracon (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence

"Empirical (not transcendental) neurophilosophy"

what the heck would transcendental neurophilosophy be? I am not a wikipedian, otherwise I would delete this. It doesn't appear anywhere else on the net, apparent from lifts from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.50.211 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Original research

The article is a huge mess, massive violations of WP:SYNTH including misinterpretationd of the sources cited and up to outright irrelevant bullshit gobbledygook. I am going to clean this up big time, because obviously nobody was reading this seriously. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neurophilosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116115958/http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwphi/9572.html to http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwphi/9572.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060202035812/http://www.petemandik.com/neurophil/neurophil.html to http://www.petemandik.com/neurophil/neurophil.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029043758/http://artsci.wustl.edu/~neuro/PhilNeuroBiblio.html to http://artsci.wustl.edu/~neuro/PhilNeuroBiblio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)