Criteria for empirical theories of consciousness should focus on the explanatory power of mechanisms, not on functional equivalence.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Cognitive Neuroscience Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-11-18 DOI:10.1080/17588928.2020.1838470
Johannes J Fahrenfort, Simon van Gaal
{"title":"Criteria for empirical theories of consciousness should focus on the explanatory power of mechanisms, not on functional equivalence.","authors":"Johannes J Fahrenfort,&nbsp;Simon van Gaal","doi":"10.1080/17588928.2020.1838470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Doerig and colleagues put forward the notion that we need hard and theory-neutral criteria by which to arbitrate between empirical (mechanistic) theories of consciousness. However, most of the criteria that they propose are not theory neutral because they focus on functional equivalence between systems. Because empirical theories of consciousness are mechanistic rather than functionalist, we think these criteria are not helpful when arbitrating between them.</p>","PeriodicalId":10413,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Neuroscience","volume":"12 2","pages":"93-94"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17588928.2020.1838470","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2020.1838470","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/11/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Doerig and colleagues put forward the notion that we need hard and theory-neutral criteria by which to arbitrate between empirical (mechanistic) theories of consciousness. However, most of the criteria that they propose are not theory neutral because they focus on functional equivalence between systems. Because empirical theories of consciousness are mechanistic rather than functionalist, we think these criteria are not helpful when arbitrating between them.

意识经验理论的标准应该关注机制的解释力,而不是功能对等。
Doerig和他的同事们提出了这样一个观点,即我们需要硬性的、理论中立的标准来在经验主义(机械论)的意识理论之间进行仲裁。然而,他们提出的大多数标准都不是理论中立的,因为他们关注的是系统之间的功能等价。因为意识的经验理论是机械论的而不是功能论的,我们认为这些标准在它们之间进行仲裁时没有帮助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Neuroscience
Cognitive Neuroscience NEUROSCIENCES-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive Neuroscience publishes high quality discussion papers and empirical papers on any topic in the field of cognitive neuroscience including perception, attention, memory, language, action, social cognition, and executive function. The journal covers findings based on a variety of techniques such as fMRI, ERPs, MEG, TMS, and focal lesion studies. Contributions that employ or discuss multiple techniques to shed light on the spatial-temporal brain mechanisms underlying a cognitive process are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信