Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T02:15:10.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Brain's “New” Science: Psychology, Neurophysiology, and Constraint

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Gary Hatfield
Gary Hatfield*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, 433 Logan Hall, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6304.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a strong philosophical intuition that direct study of the brain can and will constrain the development of psychological theory. When this intuition is tested against case studies on the neurophysiology and psychology of perception and memory, it turns out that psychology has led the way toward knowledge of neurophysiology. An abstract argument is developed to show that psychology can and must lead the way in neuroscientific study of mental function. The opposing intuition is based on mainly weak arguments about the fundamentality or objectivity of physics or physiology in relation to psychology.

Information

Type
Philosophy of Biology, Psychology, and Neuroscience
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers Sep., 2000 , 2000 , pp. S388 - S403
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barlow, Horace B. (1990), “What Does the Brain See? How Does It Understand?”, in Barlow, H., Blakemore, C., and Weston-Smith, M. (eds.), Images and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5–25.Google Scholar
Barlow, Horace B., Blakemore, Colin, and Pettigrew, J. D. (1967), “The Neural Mechanism of Binocular Depth Discrimination”, Journal of Physiology 193: 327–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, P. O. and Pettigrew, J. D. (1986), “Neural Mechanisms of Binocular Vision”, Vision Research 26: 1587–1600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruner, Jerome S. (1969), “Modalities of Memory”, in Talland, G. A. and Waugh, N. C. (eds.), The Pathology of Memory. New York: Academic Press, 253–259.Google Scholar
Churchland, Patricia S. (1986), Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, Patricia S. (1996), “Toward a Neurobiology of the Mind”, in Llinas, R. and Churchland, P. S. (eds.), The Mind-Brain Continuum: Sensory Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 281–303.Google Scholar
Cohen, Neal J. (1984), “Preserved Learning Capacity in Amnesia: Evidence for Multiple Memory Systems”, in Squire, L. R. and Butters, N. (eds.), Neuropsychology of Memory. New York: Guilford Press, 83–103.Google Scholar
Cohen, Neal J. and Squire, Larry R. (1980), “Preserved Learning and Retention of Pattern-Analyzing Skill in Amnesia: Dissociation of Knowing How and Knowing That”, Science 210: 207–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corballis, Michael C. (1988), “Psychology's Place in the Science of the Mind/Brain?”, Biology and Philosophy 3: 363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, René ([1637] 1958), Dioptric, selections, in Descartes: Philosophical Writings. Translated by Norman Kemp Smith. Originally published as La dioptrique (Leiden: I. Maire). New York: Modern Library, 145–159.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. ([1664] 1985), Treatise on Man, selections, in Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Volume One. Translated by J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, and D. Murdoch. Originally published as L'Homme de René Descartes (Paris: Girard). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 99–108.Google Scholar
Finger, Stanley (1994), Origins of Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. (1974), “Special Sciences, or The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, Synthese 28: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. (1975), Language of Thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Foster, Jonathan K. and Jelicic, Marko (eds.) (1999), Memory: Systems, Processes, or Function? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hatfield, Gary (1988a), “Neuro-Philosophy Meets Psychology: Reduction, Autonomy, and Physiological Constraints”, Cognitive Neuropsychology 5: 723–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, Gary. (1988b), “Representation and Content in Some (Actual) Theories of Perception”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 19: 175–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, Gary. (1998), “Attention in Early Scientific Psychology”, in Wright, R. D. (ed.), Visual Attention. New York: Oxford University Press, 3–25.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary. (1999), “Mental Functions as Constraints on Neurophysiology: Biology and Psychology of Vision”, in Hardcastle, V. (ed.), Psychology Meets Biology: Conjectures, Connections, Constraints. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 251–271.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary and Epstein, William (1979), “The Sensory Core and the Medieval Foundations of Early Modern Perceptual Theory”, Isis 70: 363–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hearnshaw, L. S. (1987), The Shaping of Modern Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann ([1867] 1925). Treatise on Physiological Optics, 3 vols. Translated from the third German edition by J. P. C. Southall. The third German edition reprints the original first edition, Handbuch der physiologischen Optik (Leipzig: Voss). Milwaukee: Optical Society of America.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1949), “The Logical Analysis of Psychology”, in Feigl, H. and Sellars, W. (eds.), Readings in Philosophical Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 373–384.Google Scholar
Hering, Ewald (1875), “Zur Lehre vom Lichtsinne, VI. Grundzüge einer Theorie des Farbensinnes”, Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Classe, Pt. 3, 70: 169–204.Google Scholar
Hurvich, Leo (1981), Color Vision. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Kaiser, P. K. and Boynton, R. M. (1996), Human Color Vision, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Optical Society of America.Google Scholar
Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., and Jessell, T. M. (1991), Principles of Neural Science, 3rd ed. Norwalk, CN.: Appleton & Lange.Google Scholar
Kolers, Paul A. (1975), “Specificity of Operations in Sentence Recognition”, Cognitive Psychology 7: 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, Brenda, Corkin, Suzanne, and Teubner, H.-L. (1968), “Further Analysis of the Hippocampal Amnesic Syndrome: 14-Year Follow-Up Study of H. M.”, Neuropsychologia 6: 215–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, K. (1990), “The Iconic Bottleneck and the Tenuous Link between Early Visual Processing and Perception”, in Blakemore, C. (ed.), Vision: Coding and Efficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 411–422.Google Scholar
Newton, Isaac (1704), Opticks. London: Sam. Smith and Benj. Walford.Google Scholar
Poggio, G. F. and Fischer, B. (1977), “Binocular Interaction and Depth Sensitivity in Striate and Prestriate Cortex of Behaving Rhesus Monkey”, Journal of Neurophysiology 40: 1392–1405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quine, W. V. (1974), The Roots of Reference. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Roediger, Henry L., Srinivas, Kavitha, and Weldon, Mary Susan (1989), “Dissociations between Implicit Measures of Retention”, in Lewandowsky, S., Dunn, J. C., and Kirsner, K. (eds.), Implicit Memory: Theoretical Issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 67–84.Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert (1949), The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Scheerer, Eckart (1995), “Die Sinne”, in Ritter, J. and Gründer, K. (eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Band 9:Se-Sp. Basel: Schwabe, 824–869.Google Scholar
Scheffler, Israel (1965), Conditions of Knowledge. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Lawrence A. (1995), “What is Psychophysics?”, in Hull, D., Forbes, M., and Burian, R. M. (eds.), PSA 1994, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 47–57.Google Scholar
Siegel, R. E. (1970), Galen on Sense Perception. Basel: S. Karger.Google Scholar
Squire, Larry R. (1987), Memory and Brain. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Squire, Larry R. and Cohen, Neal J. (1984), “Human Memory and Amnesia”, in Lynch, G., McGaugh, J. L., and Weinberger, N. M. (eds.), Neurobiology of Memory. New York: Guilford Press, 3–64.Google Scholar
Thompson, Evan (1995), Colour Vision. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulving, Endel (1983), Elements of Episodic Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, R. Steven (1994), In the Eye's Mind: Vision and the Helmholtz-Hering Controversy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tychsen, L. (1992), “Binocular Vision”, in Hart, W. M. (ed.), Adler's Physiology of the Eye. St. Louis: Mosby, 773–853.Google Scholar
Tyler, C. W. (1983), “Sensory Processing of Binocular Disparity”, in Schor, C. M. and Ciuffreda, K. J. (eds.), Vergence Eye Movements: Basic and Clinical Aspects. Boston: Butterworths, 199–295.Google Scholar
Tyler, C. W. (1990), “A Stereoscopic View of Visual Processing Streams”, Vision Research 30: 1877–1895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wade, Nicholas J. (1987), “On the Late Invention of the Stereoscope”, Perception 16: 785–818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkes, Kathleen V. (1980), “More Brain Lesions,” Philosophy 55: 455–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winograd, Terry (1975), “Frame Representations and the Declarative-Procedural Controversy”, in Bobrow, D. G. and Collins, A. (eds.), Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New York: Academic Press, 185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar