Description
The sciences philosophy, psychology and neuroscience share the basis that all refer to the human being. Therefore, an interdisciplinary collaboration would be desirable. The exchange of criticism is an essential requirement for interdisciplinary collaboration. Criticism must be heard and if possible considered. Indeed, criticism can be valid or unwarranted. However, whether criticism is unwarranted can only emerge from discussion and conversation. In the discussion of cognitive neuroscience, some criticism can easily be considered (such as the mereological fallacy that represents that talking about the person is substituted with talking bout the brain). Another issue for an interdisciplinary discussion of cognitive neuroscience is the interpretation of the readiness potential including re-considering Benjamin Libets classic experiments. Additionally, a critical discussion on cognitive neuroscience must address ethical questions, such as the possibility of the abuse of neuroscientific insight. Series Editors’ Preface Introduction Werbik, H. & Benetka, G. Critique of neuropsychology – A polemic Knaup, M. Living body (Leib) or physical dataset? Antonio Damsio’s and Thomas Fuchs’s holistic conception of the human being as opposite standpoint to reductionist models Fuchs, T. The person and the brain Kertscher, J. The neuropsychological discourse in philosophical critique – Bennett/Hacker and the consequences Berger, E. Persistent biologism and the misuse of neuropsychology – an activity-theoretical contribution Verleger, R. Measuring free will with the readiness potential? New data on an old misunderstanding Markowitsch, H. J. & Staniloiu, A. The brain as protagonist – Without the brain all is nothing Heinrichs, B. Is it possible to simulate “thought”?
