Associative Bridge Laws and the Psycho-Neural Interface

Abstract

Recent advancements in the brain sciences have enabled researchers to determine, with increasing accuracy, patterns and locations of neural activation associated with various psychological functions. These techniques have revived a longstanding debate regarding the relation between the mind and the brain: while many authors now claim that neuroscientific data can be used to advance our theories of higher cognition, others defend the so-called `autonomy' of psychology. Settling this significant question requires understanding the nature of the bridge laws used at the psycho-neural interface. While these laws have been the topic of extensive discussion, such debates have mostly focused on a particular type of link: reductive laws. Reductive laws are problematic: they face notorious philosophical objections and they are too scarce to substantiate current research at the interface of psychology and neuroscience. The aim of this article is to provide a systematic analysis of a different kind of bridge laws--associative laws--which play a central, albeit often overlooked, role in scientific practice.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Does functional reduction need bridge laws? A response to Marras.Kevin Morris - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (3):647-657.
Supervenient bridge laws.Terence E. Horgan - 1978 - Philosophy of Science 45 (2):227-249.
In defense of psychological laws.Martin Carrier - 1998 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (3):217-232.
Are Conservation Laws Metaphysically Necessary?Johanna Wolff - 2013 - Philosophy of Science 80 (5):898-906.
Psychological laws.William G. Lycan - 1981 - Philosophical Topics 12 (3):9-38.
Ontology and the laws of nature.John W. Carroll - 1987 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 65 (3):261 – 276.
Laws in Physics.Mathias Frisch - 2014 - European Review 22:S33-S49.
Themes in my philosophical work.Terence E. Horgan - 2002 - In Johannes L. Brandl (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of Terence Horgan. Atlanta: Rodopi. pp. 1-26.
A commentary and review of Montesquieu's spirit of laws: prepared for press from the original.Comte Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy - 1811 - Clark, N.J.: Lawbook Exchange. Edited by Jean-Antoine-Nicolas Caritat Condorcedet, Helvétius & Thomas Jefferson.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-09-07

Downloads
32 (#485,568)

6 months
5 (#652,053)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Guillermo Del Pinal
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Marco J. Nathan
University of Denver

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

What do philosophers believe?David Bourget & David J. Chalmers - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 170 (3):465-500.
Physicalism, or Something Near Enough.Jaegwon Kim - 2005 - Princeton University Press.
The Structure of Science.Ernest Nagel - 1961 - Les Etudes Philosophiques 17 (2):275-275.

View all 45 references / Add more references