神经科学的哲学基础

Hacker News 上怎么说

• nerdfiles · 2013 年

  ……庞大，使其“从表面上看就很荒谬”。这些科学家试图把按科学本质充其量只能算是建议、说服和辩护的东西，包装成重大发现。也请去读读《[The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/369939.Philosophical_Foun...)》。

  …large, makes it "absurd, on its face." These scientists attempt to pass off as discovery what can, by the nature of science itself, only be suggestion, persuasion, justification. Please also review "[The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/369939.Philosophical_Foun...)."

• mabub24 · 2017 年

  ……调研充分且引据翔实。他是一位资深的专业哲学家。他还与论文等身的资深神经科学家 M.R. Bennet 合作写过大量内容，他们合写的一本好书是：《The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience》(http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140510838X...) 我不是专业科研人员，看不了学术论文。但我看得到书。

  …researched and amply sourced. He's an established professional philosopher. He has also written extensively with M.R. Bennet, an established neuroscientist with many papers, a good book of theirs is: The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience (http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140510838X...) I'm not a professional scientist, I don't have access to papers. I have access to books.

• beezlebroxxxxxx · 2025 年

  这种论调在心灵哲学（philosophy of mind）里有着相当深厚的渊源。哲学家 Peter Hacker 和神经科学家 M.R. Bennett 曾合著了《Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience》[0]。后来他们还与 Daniel Dennett 和 John Searle 在另一本书《Neuroscience and Philosophy》[1] 中进行过极为精彩的回应和讨论。这两本书都很棒，论证非常引人入胜……

  That claim has a very robust history in philosophy of mind. Peter Hacker and M.R. Bennett, a philosopher and a neuroscientist respectively, cowrote Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience[0]. There was also a fascinating response and discussion in a further book with Daniel Dennett and John Searle called Neuroscience and Philosophy[1]. Both books are excellent and have fascinating arguments…

• nerdfiles · 2012 年

  ……引用的证据等等。“在”语言中思考（Thinking 'in' language）意味着被动性和表征，而在语言中进行思考转化（thinking into language）则意味着演化上全新的语言产出、心智自主性等。请去读读《The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience》。

  …evidence, etc. cited. Thinking 'in' language implies passivity and representation, thinking into language implies evolutionarily novel linguistic production, autonomy of mind, etc. Please review The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience.

• telxosis · 2026 年

  ……关于你能学到多少。这个帖子在骨子里就充满了讽刺。你终归得淘遍大量书籍，才能迈过像《Godel, Escher, Bach》（集异璧）这种通俗读物，进阶到类似《Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience》这样的硬核著作。

  …of how much you are going to learn. This post is irony at a base level. You ultimately have to sift through a lot of books to get past popular books like Godel, Escher, Bach and on to something like Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience.

• nerdfiles · 2012 年

  ……有意思的是，他们正在从事一项试图规避可复现性的活动。他们任由“事实”和“观点”互相偷换。像 http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/5828 这类文章是存在的。还有《Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience》。所有这些理论构建都需要记录事实。要做到这一点，我们得能跟得上到底发生了什么，而不是看像 Anthony Crick 或者早期 John Searle 搞出“心智中的脚（foot in the mind）”那种赤裸裸的瞎扯淡……

  …interesting is that they are engaging in an activity that wishes to avoid reproducibility. They allow "facts" and "ideas" to swap. Articles like http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/5828 exist. There's the Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. All that theorizing needs to record facts. To do that, we need to be able to follow what the hell is going on without blatant wankery like with Anthony Crick or early John Searle's "foot in the mind"…

正在加载完整评论……