While science aims to provide an explanation, philosophy of science specifies what constitutes an explanation (Bechtel et al., 2001). Philosophical thinking should not be discredited or ignored when discussing scientific research. Rather, it should be encouraged based on its historical impacts and potential changes in the fields of health and practical sciences (Shuttleworth, n.d.; Laplane et al., 2019).
The Role of Philosophy in Science is to:
(Anderson, 2020; Laplane et al., 2019)
1) Evaluate scientific methods
2) Clarify ill-defined concepts
3) Critique assumptions
4) Create new theories
5) Analyze ethical issues
Philosophy of Neuroscience
Philosophers seek to answer foundational questions, especially epistemic and metaphysical ones (Bechtel at al, 2001). In neurosciences, philosophical questions examine the connection between consciousness and the brain as well as how the environment or society influences this interaction (Andreev, 2015). The mind-body problem/dualism and personal identity are key areas of interest for philosophical thinking in neurosciences (Bechtel et al., 2001). The concept of being able to “know thyself” is considered to be a “philosopher’s thought experiment” since it requires a person to understand how their brain works in order to examine their thoughts or behaviours generated by this structure (Bechtel et al., 2001). In the past, reaction time, error patterns, and other indirect measures were the primary means of studying the brain (Bechtel et al., 2001). Advances in technology have allowed researchers to study the brain and its function using noninvasive techniques (Andreev, 2015). This has revolutionized neurophysiology, especially in terms of human consciousness, behaviour, and cognition (Andreev, 2015). With the advancement of tools to examine brain activity including positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging, cognitive psychologists now work with researchers in linguistics and computer science to better model cognitive tasks (Bechtel et al., 2001). The mind is considered to be an information-processing system and requires collaboration of scientists from various specialties to attempt to study it (Bechtel et al., 2001). According to Bechtel et al. (2001), philosophers have different views on how mental states are achieved, how electrical activity impacts neural processes, and whether or not the “laws in psychology would be independent of any laws characterizing brain processes.”
There have been many achievements in the field of neurophysiology such as the discovery of mirror neurons, the asymmetry of the brain using “split brain” studies, the role of the blood-brain barrier and Pavlov’s idea of signal systems of human orientation in the surrounding world (Andreev, 2015). According to Andreev (2015), the brain perceives and responds to external and internal factors before the person is even aware, indicating that the brain has a “physiological analog of free will.” Abstract thinking, self-reflection, and self-discipline are felt to differentiate humans from other animals from a philosophical perspective (Andreev, 2015). In 1944, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to Robert Thornton stating (Anderson, 2020):
"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today — and even professional scientists — seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is — in my opinion — the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."
Philosophical insight alone or relying purely on inductive reasoning can be problematic. Our observations supporting our hypotheses can create a Paradox of Confirmation (also known as Paradox of the Ravens), coined by Hempel, described below in Video 1 (Lange, 2015). Making discoveries in consciousness science is challenging. The ambiguity of qualitative data for subjective experiences makes some researches avoid referring to them or acknowledging their existence (Jylkka & Railo, 2019). Moreover, conscious experience is often reduced to studying the neural mechanisms necessary for consciousness (Jylkka & Railo, 2019). An empiricist would believe that only neural correlates of experiences can be observed as opposed to the experiences themselves (Jylkka & Railo, 2019). Jylkka and Railo (2019) oppose this view; Instead, they argue that experiences are concrete physical phenomena that can be observed and modelled using a metatheoretical framework. A concept called "Constitutive mechanisms of consciousness" describes consciousness as a hierarchical process (Jylkka & Railo, 2019). Molecules and neuronal activity make up the lower level and combine to form a neural network at a system-level, which corresponds to consciousness (Jylkka & Railo, 2019). The goal is to measure consciousness itself instead of just its correlates, using an approach called Naturalistic Monism (Jylkka & Railo, 2019).
Video 1. The Paradox of the Ravens (Lange, 2015)
Reductionism in Neuroscience
Many scientists prefer to reduce philosophical approaches of neuroscience to its basic parts explained by neurophysiology (Korzeniewski, 2017). Korzeniewski (2017) argues that the brain's neural network underlies the mind's conceptual network. Furthermore, the brain's cognitive center evolved due to persistent feedback loops, receiving signals from itself to form a representation within itself, which created consciousness and subjective psyche (Korzeniewski, 2017). Korzeniewski (2017) states, "The detailed structure of complex neural networks, especially those underlying the subjective psyche and (self-) consciousness, must evolve during individual development through the acquisition of new experiences and accumulation of memory based on formation/elimination/modification of (the weight of) synaptic connections." This researcher supports a reductionist view, by shifting the focus from a philosopher's propositions to a neuroscientist's observations since the "true" nature of conceptual networks cannot be known (Korzeniewski, 2017). Korzeniewski (2017) claims that it is impossible to treat the mind and the body as two independent phenomena with a bi-directional causal relationship due to their total dissimilarity. Simply put, consciousness is a manifestation or by-product of neurophysiological brain functioning and emphasis is placed on the physical-chemical process (Korzeniewski, 2017). This opinion is in keeping with epiphenomenalism, which suggests mental events are caused by physical events in the brain and do not have an effect on any physical events (Korzeniewski, 2017).
Anderson, T. (2020, May 29). 3 reasons why scientists (and you) need philosophy. Medium.
Andreev, I.L. (2015). Philosophical aspects of neurophysiology. Herald of the Russian Academy of
Sciences, 85(2), 173-179. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331615020021
Bechtel, W., Mandik, P., & Mundale, J. (2001). Neurophilosophical foundations: Philosophy meets
the neurosciences. In W. Bechtel, P. Mandick, J. Mundale & R. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Philosophy
and the Neurosciences: A reader (pp.1-22). Wiley-Blackwell.
Jylkka, J. & Railo, H. (2019). Consciousness as a concrete physical phenomenon. Consciousness
and Cognition, 74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019/102779
Korzeniewski, B. (2017). Does matter matter? Should we mind the mind? Can philosophy be
reduced to neurophysiology? Open Journal of Philosophy, 7, 265-328.
Lange, M. [Wireless Philosophy]. (2015, July 24). Philosophy-Epistemology: The Paradox of the
Ravens [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SKmqh5Eu4Y
Laplane, L., Mantovani, P., Adolphs, R., Chang, H., Mantovani, A., McFall-Ngai, M., Rovelli, C., Sober,
E. & Pradeu, T. (2019, March 5). Why science needs philosophy. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 10(116), 3948-3952. Retrieved from
Shuttleworth, M. (n. d.). Philosophy of science history. Retrieved from https://explorable.com/print/history-of-the-philosophy-of-science
Comments