Neuroscience Will Replace Philosophy

Believes That Philosophy Will Disintegrate and Will Be Replaced by Neuroscience.

Reyes, Joanna Lyn N.

Reyes, Naja C.

Ricafort, Joanah Ericka E.

Bachelor of Science in Psychology, Urdaneta University

PY01 Understanding Self

Abigail C. Interno

October 11, 2021

1
Neuroscience Will Replace Philosophy

Developments in the Philosophy of Neuroscience

philosophy of neuroscience”neurophilosophy came to be better clarified ovenr the

first decade of the twenty-first, due primarily to more questions being pursued in both

areas. Philosophy of neuroscience still tends to pose traditional questions from philosophy

of science specifically about neuroscience . Such questions include: What is the nature of

neuroscientific explanation? And , what is the nature of discovery in neuroscience?

Answers to thes e questions are pursued either descriptively (how does neuroscience

proceed?) or normatively (how should neuroscience proceed)? Some normative projects in

philosophy of neuroscience are “ deconstructive”, criticizing claims abou t the topic made

by neuroscientists. For example, philosophers of neuroscience have criticized the

conception of personhood assumed by researchers in cognitive neuroscience (cf. Roskies

2009) . Other normative projects are constructive, proposing new theories of neuronal

phenomena or methods for interpreting neuroscientific data Such projects often integrate

smoothly with theoretical neuroscience itself . For example, Chris Eliasmith and Charles

Anderson developed an approach to

constructin neurocomputational models in their book Neural Engineering (2003). In

separate publications , Eliasmith has that the framework introduced in Neural

Engineering provides both a normative account of neural representation and a

framework for unifying explanation in neuroscience (e.g., Eliasmith 2009).

Neurophilosophy continued to a pply findings from the neurosciences

raditional, philosophical questions. E xamples include: What is an emotion? (Prinz

2004) What is the nature of desire? (Schroeder 2004) How is social cognition made

2
Neuroscience Will Replace Philosophy

possible? (Goldman 2006) What is the neural basis of moral cognition? (Prinz 2007)

What is the neural basis of happiness ? (Flanagan 2009) Neurophilosophical answers

to these questions are constrained by what neuroscience reveals about nervous systems.

For example, in his book Three Faces of Desire , Timothy Schroeder (2004) argued

that our commonsense conception of desire attributes to it three capacities: (1 ) the

capacity to reinforce behavior when satisfied , (2) the capacity to motivate behavior,

and (3) the capacity to determine sources of pleasure. Based on e vidence from the

literature on dopamine function and reinforcement learning theory, Schroeder argued

tha t reward processing is the basis for all three capacities. Thus, reward is the

essence of desire

3
Neuroscience Will Replace Philosophy

Brain Imaging

Neuroscience analyses what makes the brain and broader nervous system function:

biological and chemical processes. Modern neuroscience assesses the nervous system, studying

its structure, how it develops and works. The discipline also looks at how the nervous system

changes and malfunctions. Neural pathways in the brain transmit information and it’s these

connections that are a key area of study for neuroscientists. Through specialized brain scanning

equipment, scientists can see how the connections in the brain are functioning, identify damage

and investigate the effects of impaired neural pathways on the body and mind With neuroscience

focusing on physical sets of properties and psychology focusing on the mental counterparts, the

two disciplines may appear to be disparate. However, neuroscience does have a role to play in

psychology. In fact, far from being completely unrelated disciplines, psychology and

neuroscience can complement one another in several ways. Together, the two areas can help

answer questions around cognition and behavior, neural development,

neuropsychopharmacology and plasticity, for example.

Understanding how the brain works on a scientific level and utilizing technology such as

brain scanners can help identify correlations between brain and mental states. Neuroscience has

created new and advanced ways for scientists to assess the biological processes that underpin

behavior, which in turn enables professionals to make more informed decisions about mental

interventions and treatments. With the arrival of new imaging technology, however, psychiatrists

now have several methods for ‘‘seeing’’ inside the brain and observing its activity

4
Neuroscience Will Replace Philosophy

In the 1970s, computerized tomography (CT) scans began to replace X-rays as a way to

visualize the brain. These impressive machines yielded unparalleled pictures that looked like

slices of the brain, with a readily visible and detailed structure. Although these images told us

little about function, CT scans were striking enough to be used in court cases in which the

presence of mental illness was an issue. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provided even better

pictures of brain slices, and the development of functional imaging was even more of a

breakthrough. Functional MRI (fMRI) allows researchers to examine patients’ brains while the

patients are performing tasks or experiencing emotions. This technique is easier to administer

and gives a more precise image. In positive emission tomography (PET), the patient is injected

with a radioactive isotope that resembles chemicals used in specific areas of the brain and not in

others. The beauty of the pictures produced by these scans is that one can see brain areas

‘‘lighting up’’ in association with a specific function. As a result, we now have much more

information about which brain regions do what.

Haynes, a neuroscientist at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in

Berlin, put people into a brain scanner in which a display screen flashed a succession of random

letters. He told them to press a button with either their right or left index fingers whenever they

felt the urge, and to remember the letter that was showing on the screen when they made the

decision. The experiment used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to reveal brain

activity in real time as the volunteers chose to use their right or left hands. The results were quite

a surprise. "The first thought we had was 'we have to check if this is real'," says Haynes. "We

came up with more sanity checks than I've ever seen in any other study before. "The conscious

decision to push the button was made about a second before the actual act, but the team

discovered that a pattern of brain activity seemed to predict that decision by as many as seven

5
Neuroscience Will Replace Philosophy

seconds. Long before the subjects were even aware of making a choice, it seems, their brains had

already decided. As humans, we like to think that our decisions are under our conscious control

x`that we have free will. Philosophers have debated that concept for centuries, and now Haynes

and other experimental neuroscientists are raising a new challenge. They argue that

consciousness of a decision may be a mere biochemical afterthought, with no influence

whatsoever on a person's actions. According to this logic, they say, free will is an illusion. "We

feel we choose, but we don't," says Patrick Haggard, a neuroscientist at University College

London. Philosophers are willing to admit that neuroscience could one day trouble the concept of

free will. Imagine a situation (philosophers like to do this) in which researchers could always

predict what someone would decide from their brain activity, before the subject became aware of

their decision. "If that turned out to be true, that would be a threat to free will," says Mele. 

Neuroscience aims to provide falsifiable and verifiable answers about the nervous

system. Philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't seek to solve scientific problems, but primarily to

redefine questions and interpret answers. Science can provide insight and describe various

phenomena at a certain level of abstraction, but some questions require a philosophical context.

For example, consider the problem of the morality of slavery. A neuroscientific perspective may

describe various cognitive, cellular and psychological effects occurring in the enslaved

individuals. The advances in neuroscience in recent years have, without doubt, been

scientifically impressive, the media have highlighted biological findings in psychiatry, and one

gets the impression that the neurosciences are about to solve the mystery of mental illness.

6
Neuroscience Will Replace Philosophy

CONCLUSION

For one thing, this conflates all of philosophy with rational psychology, and for another,

psychology conducted at the degree of detail of neuroscience would be completely intractable.

Let me start with the second point. Despite the fact that physiology and genetic competition are

basically all about chemistry, we preserve the field of biology. In fact, out of the narrow region

where this fact is most significant, we construct a new field called biochemistry. Why? Well,

most of chemistry has nothing to do with biology, and the level of detail at which chemistry

actually predicts biology is just insufficient to be useful or helpful.

We need to move the bigger issues out of the way of biochemists on both ends if they are to

understand the jobs they are given. However, the larger issue is that a map does not represent

its territory. Assume we had a perfect psychology that included not only neurology but also all

of the relevant epiphenomena, such as language, logic, all influences on decision-making

processes, personality structures that create all types of bias or interpretation, their formation,

and their interaction with those of other humans and data.

This complete understanding of brain function would not solve philosopher's basic

difficulties any more than our existing knowledge of anatomy and histology would meet an athlete's

basic needs. So, physiology provides us with a model of how the body functions, and it's an excellent

model. How can one put this into action? What difference does it make, unless there are

fundamental issues like injuries or equipment adjustments that may be addressed within its

terms? Neurology is important to philosophy to the same extent. There isn't much.

Philosophy is essentially concerned with "What types of concepts do I use for what

purposes? How do I approach thinking in unfamiliar territory?" More closely related to the athlete's

problems: "When should I use this anatomy for which purposes? How do I deal with new

7
Neuroscience Will Replace Philosophy

physical conditions and obstacles as they arise?" rather than anything a neurologist could say: " How

does thinking happen?" or "How do flexion, tension, and leverage happen?" as an anatomist may

say."

Observing how generations of philosophers have approached the same 'stupid' problems is

like to witnessing how footballers have approached the same repetitive process of exploiting the

field and positions to their greatest advantage from the start of football. The purpose isn't to

answer those issues; in fact, it's possible that we'll be disappointed if portions of philosophy

slip into'real sciences,' such as computing. It's all about having questions to answer that feed

the rest of science. Similarly, soccer isn't simply about winning games, and we may be

disappointed when a good game comes to an end. It's about having strategies for winning

games that can be applied to other aspects of life

8
Neuroscience Will Replace Philosophy

References

Haynes, D., 2021. John-Dylan Haynes. [online] Informationphilosopher.com. Available at:

<https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/haynes/> [Accessed 10 October

2021].

Documentcloud.adobe.com. 2021. Adobe Acrobat for Google Drive. [online] Available at:

<https://documentcloud.adobe.com/gsuiteintegration/index.html?state=%7B%22ids%22%3A

%5B%221-LMqKwmNhVTbmB4Fj-21w25GqL0nBREv%22%5D%2C%22action%22%3A

%22open%22%2C%22userId%22%3A%22113938698886809224152%22%2C

%22resourceKeys%22%3A%7B%7D%7D> [Accessed 10 October 2021].

[closed], S. and Davis, D., 2021. Shouldn't philosophy be replaced by neuroscience?. [online]

Philosophy Stack Exchange. Available at:

<https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/18023/shouldnt-philosophy-be-replaced-by-

neuroscience?

fbclid=IwAR0BdwD_1fK97qAQQndgUcWIpG1PCRkcNhnV0LPxqLjrsgw5oUKFoyVLZ2A>

[Accessed 10 October 2021].

Akins, Kathleen A., 1993a, “What Is It Like to Be Boring and Myopic?”, in Dennett and

His Critics: Demystifying Mind, Bo Dahlbom (ed.), Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 124–160

1993, “Philosophy Neuralized: A Critical Notice of P.M. Churchland’s A

Neurocomputational Perspective”, Behavior and Philosophy, 20(2): 75–88.

George Johnson (In the Palaces of Memory: How We Build the Worlds Inside Our Heads, 1991) (p.

209.)

." Patricia Churchland"(Neurophilosophy)(1986).