Towards a genuinely interdisciplinary ‘science of the mind’
Alessandra Buccella, Uri Maoz, Liad Mudrik
Authorea Preprints April 10, 2024 preprint DOI: 10.22541/au.171276601.18250155/v1 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Key points | Argues that neuroscience and philosophy should establish synergetic, mutually informing relations rather than neuroscience replacing philosophy, and claims that this collaborative co-evolution is key to resolving long-lasting questions that neither discipline can resolve alone. |
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 ‘Do we have Free Will?’, ‘Why are we conscious?’, ‘How do reason and emotion interact in decision making?’, and more. 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 co-evolution, 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.