Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Levels of explanation in biological psychology.Huib L. de Jong - 2002 - Philosophical Psychology 15 (4):441-462.
    Until recently, the notions of function and multiple realization were supposed to save the autonomy of psychological explanations. Furthermore, the concept of supervenience presumably allows both dependence of mind on brain and non-reducibility of mind to brain, reconciling materialism with an independent explanatory role for mental and functional concepts and explanations. Eliminativism is often seen as the main or only alternative to such autonomy. It gladly accepts abandoning or thoroughly reconstructing the psychological level, and considers reduction if successful as equivalent (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • The making of a memory mechanism.Carl F. Craver - 2003 - Journal of the History of Biology 36 (1):153-95.
    Long-Term Potentiation (LTP) is a kind of synaptic plasticity that many contemporary neuroscientists believe is a component in mechanisms of memory. This essay describes the discovery of LTP and the development of the LTP research program. The story begins in the 1950's with the discovery of synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus (a medial temporal lobe structure now associated with memory), and it ends in 1973 with the publication of three papers sketching the future course of the LTP research program. The (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Reducing mind to molecular pathways: Explicating the reductionism implicit in current cellular and molecular neuroscience. [REVIEW]John Bickle - 2006 - Synthese 151 (3):411-434.
    As opposed to the dismissive attitude toward reductionism that is popular in current philosophy of mind, a “ruthless reductionism” is alive and thriving in “molecular and cellular cognition”—a field of research within cellular and molecular neuroscience, the current mainstream of the discipline. Basic experimental practices and emerging results from this field imply that two common assertions by philosophers and cognitive scientists are false: (1) that we do not know much about how the brain works, and (2) that lower-level neuroscience cannot (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   67 citations  
  • Explicating pluralism: Where the mind to molecule pathway gets off the track - reply to Bickle.Huib Looren de Jong - 2006 - Synthese 151 (3):435-443.
    It is argued that John Bickle’s Ruthless Reductionism is flawed as an account of the practice of neuroscience. Examples from genetics and linguistics suggest, first, that not every mind-brain link or gene-phenotype link qualifies as a reduction or as a complete explanation, and, second, that the higher (psychological) level of analysis is not likely to disappear as neuroscience progresses. The most plausible picture of the evolving sciences of the mind-brain seems a patchwork of multiple connections and partial explanations, linking anatomy, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)Ruthless reductionism: A review essay of John Bickle's philosophy and neuroscience: A ruthlessly reductive account. [REVIEW]Huib L. de Jong & Maurice K. D. Schouten - 2005 - Philosophical Psychology 18 (4):473-486.
    John Bickle's new book on philosophy and neuroscience is aptly subtitled 'a ruthlessly reductive account'. His 'new wave metascience' is a massive attack on the relative autonomy that psychology enjoyed until recently, and goes even beyond his previous (Bickle, J. (1998). Psychoneural reduction: The new wave. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.) new wave reductionsism. Reduction of functional psychology to (cognitive) neuroscience is no longer ruthless enough; we should now look rather to cellular or molecular neuroscience at the lowest possible level for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Constitutive Relevance in Interlevel Experiments.Maria Serban & Sune Holm - 2020 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 71 (2):697-725.
    One reason for the popularity of Craver’s mutual manipulability account of constitutive relevance is that it seems to make good sense of the experimental practices and constitutive reasoning in the life sciences. Two recent papers propose a theoretical alternative to in light of several important conceptual objections. Their alternative approach, the no de-coupling account, conceives of constitution as a dependence relation that once postulated provides the best explanation of the impossibility of breaking the common cause coupling of a macro-level mechanism (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reduction, elimination, and levels: The case of the LTP-learning link.Maurice K. D. Schouten & Huib Looren De Jong - 1999 - Philosophical Psychology 12 (3):237 – 262.
    We argue in this paper that so-called new wave reductionism fails to capture the nature of the interlevel relations between psychology and neuroscience. Bickle (1995, Psychoneural reduction of the genuinely cognitive: some accomplished facts, Philosophical Psychology, 8, 265-285; 1998, Psychoneural reduction: the new wave, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) has claimed that a (bottom-up) reduction of the psychological concepts of learning and memory to the concepts of neuroscience has in fact already been accomplished. An investigation of current research on the phenomenon (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Stress time-dependently influences the acquisition and retrieval of unrelated information by producing a memory of its own.Chelsea E. Cadle & Phillip R. Zoladz - 2015 - Frontiers in Psychology 6.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)Ruthless reductionism: A review essay of John Bickle's Philosophy and neuroscience: A ruthlessly reductive account.Huib Looren de Jong & Maurice K. D. Schouten - 2005 - Philosophical Psychology 18 (4):473-486.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations