What do you think?
Rate this book
Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience
In this provocative survey, a distinguished philosopher and a leading neuroscientist outline the conceptual problems at the heart of cognitive neuroscience.
480 pages, Paperback
First published April 18, 2003
About the author
Maxwell Richard Bennett
8 books18 followersProfessor Maxwell Bennett is an internationally renowned neuroscientist and expert on the history and philosophy of brain and mind research. He has had a long-standing interest in studying the functioning of synapses and a wider philosophical interest in the relationship between the brain and our psychological attributes such as thinking, remembering and perceiving. Among his major research contributions is the discovery of non-adrenergic non-cholinergic (NANC) neurotransmitters and elucidation of their mechanisms of action, which has had profound implications for the treatment of visceral and vascular disorders. His current research is investigating synaptic functioning in neuropsychiatric diseases including post-traumatic stress disorder. His team was the first to demonstrate that stress leads to the loss of synapses in certain parts of the brain and in turn, to the loss of grey matter seen via neuroimaging in PTSD patients. His philosophical studies challenge traditional paradigms of brain science, which attribute psychological capabilities such as thinking, perceiving and remembering, to the brain. Instead he says “it is the person who possesses these attributes, while the brain facilitates expression of these abilities”. Professor Bennett’s pioneering work on the physiology, development and plasticity of synapses, led to him being awarded by the Australian Government in 1980, the first and largest Centre of Research Excellence (of the 10 established within Australian universities). In 2000 he was elected to the first University Chair ‘for research recognized internationally as of exceptional distinction’. As Founding Director of the Brain and Mind Research Institute (BMRI), Professor Bennett cemented his vision of bringing together psychiatrists, psychologists, neuroscientists and patients, to facilitate collaborative research and patient management. He has founded numerous other organizations and authored several books on the history and philosophy of the brain sciences, and on science policy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
December 9, 2020
This is a must-read for every philosopher of mind, psychologist, neuroscientists. It covers the most important concepts in these fields. The authors critizised these concepts with engaging and sound arguments, and propose to rethink the way we understand cognition from the very words we use to explain it.
Though it is a long and dense book, the authors analyze deep philosophical problems in a simple and clear way. Excellent as an comprehensive introduction. It will blow your mind!
Though it is a long and dense book, the authors analyze deep philosophical problems in a simple and clear way. Excellent as an comprehensive introduction. It will blow your mind!
September 10, 2008
In this lengthy volume, Bennett and Hacker point out some very interesting misconceptions. In a controversial and 500-page book on the intersection of two specialties, I only found myself disagreeing with them a few times, and only one of my disagreements lasted more than a paragraph in Bennett and Hacker's book.
A good friend who recommended the book to me called it "a good book in need of a good editor," and I couldn't agree more. The book could easily get all of the same points across in 300 pages, and an edit could resolve all but one of the problems I had with the content.
On the other hand, the repetition is useful to help readers shift their frame of mind from common language usage to the context-specific version of language advocated (though not always used) in this book.
The book is certainly worth a read for anyone interested in neuroscience or philosophy, especially if that person can understand basic concepts from the other field.
A good friend who recommended the book to me called it "a good book in need of a good editor," and I couldn't agree more. The book could easily get all of the same points across in 300 pages, and an edit could resolve all but one of the problems I had with the content.
On the other hand, the repetition is useful to help readers shift their frame of mind from common language usage to the context-specific version of language advocated (though not always used) in this book.
The book is certainly worth a read for anyone interested in neuroscience or philosophy, especially if that person can understand basic concepts from the other field.
January 16, 2022
Definitivno najteža knjiga koju sam ikad čitao. Dobro da je završavam tokom karantina a ne da je počinjem. Nikako nije preporuka za publiku koja ne želi da čita knjigu uz večito otvoren Google pretraživač. Oba autora su se valjano potrudila da temu analiziraju iz perspektive obe nauke i trudila da usaglase mišljenja koliko mogu. Centralna tema knjige jeste pitanje svesti koje spada u domen kognitivnih neuronauka ali svako koga zanimaju i njene druge grane (kao mene) je dobrodošao da je pročita. Naravno morate i da volite filozofiranje. Izašla je pred publiku u vreme potiskivanja filozofije pa kao da nastoji da objasni svima da su sva pitanja koja nas danas opterećuju pitali i filozofi pre više stotina godina. To što idalje nemamo definitivan odgovor ne znači da nisu uspeli, niti da će neuronauka uspeti u tome već da odgovora možda nema ili nije ono što mislimo. Zašto imamo slobodnu volju. Zašto se pitamo koje je naše mesto u univerzumu? Iz kog razloga radimo to što radimo? Osećamo to što osećamo? Mislimo to što mislimo? Možda neuronauke i biologija danas imaju tehnologiju ali filozofija pruža koncept. Redukcionizam koji vlada neuronaukama neće bez filozofije moći da izdvoji ova pitanja iz konteksta i pruži odgovor.
January 23, 2020
Not a bad book. Learned some interesting things. Am learning I need to learn a hell of a lot more about neuroscience in order to understand neuroscience. Hah! Primary complaint is the book isn't the biggest I've seen by far, but it still feels like there's some filler in there, could have been cut down. The old joke about getting paid by the word...? Recommended.
April 23, 2014
Bennett and Hacker have an interesting take on the contemporary philosophy of neuroscience and mind; they have views that they regard as anti-Cartesian that are very instructive and views that are anti-reductive. Unfortunately, the book runs into a number of pitfalls that make it difficult to read and enjoy. The first is that it takes the Oxbridge "natural language" approach for granted, and this is a serious problem since there are very few philosophers in America (including the vast majority of the folks that Bennett takes time to criticize) who think that this is a viable program. Many of the differences in B&H's conclusions are a direct result of this programmatic difference, but it rides underneath the debates, and this is a problem because it can mislead the reader to think that the debates are being fought from positions of methodological neutrality.
There are also some questionable interpretations of arguments that Hacker is attacking. The description of the Churchlands' view of reduction is questionable, at best, and the appendices that deal with Dennett and Searle have some serious problems (problems which are discussed in another volume, a volume that I think is quite a bit better than this one, in addition to being shorter).
Of course, there are things that the book does well; it is an ambitious project and does a good job at systematically covering a lot of ground. B&H are certainly thorough, and seem bent on responding to every issue where they disagree with the mainstream philosophical community. There's nothing wrong with this; it makes for some very good projects. However, in this case, it makes the book a seriously long read and that can compound frustrations for those who feel misrepresented or misunderstood in the course of the discussion.
I recommend, instead, looking to the shorter dialogues between B&H and philosophers of mind; it helps to put them in perspective, since often enough their own characterizations of the state of play fail to contextualize them well. They're on the outside looking in, and not on the top looking down, and this is an important distinction for understanding both their arguments and the relationship to the community of philosophers and neuroscientists.
There are also some questionable interpretations of arguments that Hacker is attacking. The description of the Churchlands' view of reduction is questionable, at best, and the appendices that deal with Dennett and Searle have some serious problems (problems which are discussed in another volume, a volume that I think is quite a bit better than this one, in addition to being shorter).
Of course, there are things that the book does well; it is an ambitious project and does a good job at systematically covering a lot of ground. B&H are certainly thorough, and seem bent on responding to every issue where they disagree with the mainstream philosophical community. There's nothing wrong with this; it makes for some very good projects. However, in this case, it makes the book a seriously long read and that can compound frustrations for those who feel misrepresented or misunderstood in the course of the discussion.
I recommend, instead, looking to the shorter dialogues between B&H and philosophers of mind; it helps to put them in perspective, since often enough their own characterizations of the state of play fail to contextualize them well. They're on the outside looking in, and not on the top looking down, and this is an important distinction for understanding both their arguments and the relationship to the community of philosophers and neuroscientists.
Read
October 31, 2017'private language argument'
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews