Towards an interdisciplinary "science of the mind": A call for enhanced collaboration between philosophy and neuroscience.

Neuroscience has shifted from describing the neural basis of mental phenomena to redefining those phenomena based on brain findings, leading some to view it as a missing piece for philosophy. This paper argues against neuroscience replacing philosophy and instead advocates for a collaborative coevolution where both disciplines nourish and influence each other to resolve long-standing questions about human thought and behavior, such as free will.

Study at a glance

Abstract

In recent decades, the neuroscientific community has moved from describing the neural underpinnings of mental phenomena-as characterized by experimental psychology and philosophy of mind-to attempting to redefine those mental phenomena based on neural findings. Nowadays, many are intrigued by the idea that neuroscience might provide the "missing piece" that would allow philosophers (and, to an extent, psychologists, too) to make important advances, generating new means that these disciplines lack to close knowledge gaps and answer questions like "What is Free Will?" and "Do humans have it?." In this paper, we argue that instead of striving for neuroscience to replace philosophy in the ongoing quest to understanding human thought and behavior, more synergetic relations should be established, where neuroscience does not only inspire philosophy but also draws from it. We claim that such a collaborative coevolution, with the two disciplines nourishing and influencing each other, is key to resolving long-lasting questions that have thus far proved impenetrable for either discipline on its own.