Brain-Wise: Studies in Neurophilosophy

by Patricia S. Churchland

Progress in the neurosciences is profoundly changing our conception of ourselves. Contrary to time-honored intuition, the mind turns out to be a complex of brain functions. And contrary to the wishful thinking of some philosophers, there is no stemming the revolutionary impact that brain research will have on our understanding of how the mind works. Brain-Wise is the sequel to Patricia Smith Churchland's Neurophilosophy , the book that launched a subfield. In a clear, conversational manner, this book examines old questions about the nature of the mind within the new framework of the brain sciences. What, it asks, is the neurobiological basis of consciousness, the self, and free choice? How does the brain learn about the external world and about its own introspective world? What can neurophilosophy tell us about the basis and significance of religious and moral experiences? Drawing on results from research at the neuronal, neurochemical, system, and whole-brain levels, the book gives an up-to-date perspective on the state of neurophilosophy—what we know, what we do not know, and where things may go from here.

Genres: Philosophy, Neuroscience, Science, Psychology, Nonfiction

438 pages, Paperback

First published November 8, 2002

About the author

Patricia Smith Churchland (born July 16, 1943 in Oliver, British Columbia, Canada) is a Canadian-American philosopher working at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) since 1984. She is currently a professor at the UCSD Philosophy Department, an adjunct professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, and an associate of the Computational Neuroscience Laboratory (Sejnowski Lab) at the Salk Institute. She won a MacArthur prize in 1991. Educated at the University of British Columbia, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Oxford (B.Phil.). She taught philosophy at the University of Manitoba from 1969 to 1984 and is the wife of philosopher Paul Churchland.

Churchland has focused on the interface between neuroscience and philosophy. According to her, philosophers are increasingly realizing that to understand the mind one must understand the brain. She is associated with a school of thought called eliminativism or eliminative materialism, which argues that folk psychology concepts such as belief, free will, and consciousness will likely need to be revised as science understands more about the nature of brain function. She is also called a naturalist, because she thinks scientific research is the best basis for understanding the nature of the mind. Her recent work focuses also on neuroethics, and attempts to understand choice, responsibility and the basis of moral norms in terms of brain function, brain evolution, and brain-culture interactions.

She was interviewed along with her husband Paul Churchland for the book Conversations on Consciousness by Susan Blackmore, 2006.

She attended and was a speaker at the Beyond Belief symposium on November 2006 and November 2007.

Patricia and her husband are noted for their attempts to apply their philosophical positions in their daily life. Emotions and feelings, for instance, are eschewed in favour of more precise formulations, such as the following which describes the state of Patricia after a hectic meeting:

"Paul, don't speak to me, my serotonin levels have hit bottom, my brain is awash in glucocorticoids, my blood vessels are full of adrenaline, and if it weren't for my endogenous opiates I'd have driven the car into a tree on the way home. My dopamine levels need lifting."

Reviews

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is amazing in scope and clarity. I am now a Patricia Churchland groupie. She covers classical philosophical issues, like free will, consciousness, and representation, and does it in a marvelously no-bullshit manner. She would wear one of those xkcd shirts that says, "Science: it works, bitches." She delves a little deeper into details than Dennett, but is similarly accessible.

No background in neurology or psychology is needed to understand this book. A very minimal background in philosophy (just some of the basic terms) might be helpful.

My only criticism is that many of the figures take the role of footnotes, which seems weird to me. I suppose they would help clarify points for those familiar with neurology.

["Nico"]

This is a difficult book to rate but I'd like to try since there is only one one-sentence review.

I am somewhat in agreement that the author is "dismissive of philosophical questions", with the caveat that this book is intended as a core for undergraduate courses in neurophilosophy. It is perhaps somewhat understandable why an undergraduate course would place such emphasis on Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume. It is regrettable that more contemporary philosophers are missing, but it is more regrettable that the author touts "the West" as a cherished object as she idealizes Plato and Aristotle as Eternal Experts (unhealthy and WEIRD). Additionally, false dichotomies are rampant in this book as rhetorical devices (in the form of the classic 'bait-and-switch': a weak explanatory approach is torn down to reveal one alternative). While it is certainly difficult to offer an ecology of positions on issues, it is also a professional obligation when writing course material.

The neuroscience of the book, however, seems particularly well thought out. I do not agree with the other reviewer at all on the treatment of scientific questions. I'm no neuroscientist, but I felt these were well handled and illuminating. Illustrations of the brain are many and varied, complemented by illustrations of system models and experiments, which are of great help in navigating the rhetorical panning-in on brain regions to subregions to epigentics to proteins.

So I wouldn't recommend this book, but its not irredeemable. For most readers, Behave is probably a better bet.

[Dan Zarfati · Rating 3 out of 5]

Extremely pragmatic and somehow reductionist. The author engages in a dispute with more old-school psychologists who believe the mind must be seen independently from the physical brain. The author tries to prove that the physical brain and the work of neurons are responsible for several deficiencies. Still, this is not enough to explain how things really work. So we go from one extreme to the other. Of how evolution came about, her side of the story was from pure chance and accident, which actually does not explain much. From a scientific perspective, describing the connection that certain neurons have to some actions and performances is an advance. But still does not explain the whole evolutionary process.

[Will Dorrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

A textbook on the interactions of neuroscience and philosophy.

I study neuroscience as a day job, which often helped, and made this book a huge win for me. It taught me a lot, I even stopped to note down things as I went it was so good. Super clear and tightly argued, fitting for a philosopher.

I love the slow movement of topics from pure philosophising to empirical testing as science advances. This textbook is a primer on the movement of a selection of these topics as neuroscience has progressed.

The writing is also sharp, spritely, humorous, and entertaining

That said, it spends a lot of time countering classic views in philosophy, a lot of which seem ludicrous as a neuroscientist.

[Tom Menke · Rating 5 out of 5]

start here

[Miguel V · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing book, philosophical thinking extrapolated to neuroscience, really makes you think.
Great book, loved it

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

An review of the ideas in Neurophilosophy, with updated science. This one was less comprehensive, and for me, therefore less interesting. But still a humdinger of a doodiddly for atheists, reductionists, and those who are interested in getting to the bottom of mind and conciousness without resorting to magic and tomfoolery.

[Soulcatcher · Rating 3 out of 5]

good neuroscience, bad philosophy

[Jason · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dismissive of philosophical questions, glib on scientific.