Bibliographische Detailangaben
Beteiligte: Ravenscroft, Ian
In: Mind & Language, 13, 1998, 1, S. 132-137
veröffentlicht:
Wiley
Medientyp: Artikel, E-Artikel

Nicht angemeldet

weitere Informationen
Umfang: 132-137
ISSN: 0268-1064
1468-0017
DOI: 10.1111/1468-0017.00069
veröffentlicht in: Mind & Language
Sprache: Englisch
Schlagwörter:
Kollektion: Wiley (CrossRef)
Inhaltsangabe

<jats:p>Francis Crick has identified a doctrine‐the neuron doctrine‐which he apparently regards as both true and astonishing. I begin by carefully articulating Crick’s doctrine, arguing that whilst plausible it is certainly not astonishing. I then consider a related doctrine, the biological neuroscience thesis (BNT). According to BNT, mental science is biological neuroscience, where biological neuroscience is pretty much exhausted by neuroanatomy, neurophysiology and neurochemistry. Stoljar and Gold argue that BNT is unsupported by current scientific developments. I argue that well‐established results in the cognitive sciences show that it is false.</jats:p>