Patricia Churchland writes book on "Neurophilosophy"

February 13, 1986

UCSD PHILOSOPHER WRITES BOOK ON "NEUROPHILOSOPHY"

A University of California, San Diego philosophy professor has written a book which provides a panoramic perspective on what recent developments in philosophy and neuroscience teach us about the human mind.

Both neuroscientists and philosophers study the human mind, and have much to learn from each other, according to Patricia Churchland, author of "Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain." Her book is scheduled for publication by MIT Press this spring.

As philosophers and neuroscientists finally do find some common meeting ground, the result could be theories about human behavior which might rock the foundations of traditional psychology, Churchland believes.

Once these new theories evolve, "It would be amazing if (they)...and the new discoveries did not contain surprises of such magnitude as to constitute a revolution in understanding," Churchland writes. "In its power to overturn the 'eternal verities' of folk knowledge, this revolution will be at least the equal of the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions."

Churchland approaches her subject from a unique vantage point. She is an Oxford-trained philosopher who has studied neuroscience at the University of Manitoba Medical School.

"The book came about because a number of years ago I became very disillusioned with what passed for mainstream philosophy " Churchland said. "And I decided that one had to do something more interesting than just speculate in an armchair and think that you were finding out something about the nature of consciousness."

So, Churchland, a member of the philosophy department faculty, decided to enroll in classes in neuroscience at the medical school.

"At about that time there was a new wave in philosophy which was stressing the importance of empirical research in arriving at philosophical conclusions about various things, the nature of the mind being one of them," she continued.

"It seemed to me that if philosophers really wanted to answer questions about the self, consciousness and how we think, they could not afford to ignore what empirical data were available," Churchland said. "The difficulty was that most of the people who were involved in that new wave had the view that while cognitive science and artificial intelligence and-psychology generally were relevant to philosophical issues, at least we could be pretty sure that the physical brain wasn't."

But Churchland was convinced that studies of neurons and networks of neurons in the brain could offer some answers for traditional philosophers.

"We tend to suppose the mind is some mysterious, nonphysical thing that survives bodily death," she said. "But, no such substance exists. There is only the brain. Our thinking and deciding, our awareness and our motives, are the outcome of the way the brain works. If we want to really understand those functions, and if we want to know our 'selves', then we need to understand their neurobiological basis."

The first section of the book outlines basic neurobiology for the philosopher, while the second section discusses the philosophy of science to introduce the neuroscientist to these concepts.

Churchland concludes with a lengthy section discussing the need for neuroscience to construct theories about how the brain functions. She outlines several emerging theoretical ventures which are already beginning to bridge the gap between the physical structure of the brain and our psychological natures.

"Although there is an undercurrent of reticence regarding theory in neuroscience, nonetheless there is a growing recognition of the need for theorizing," she writes. "If neuroscience is to have a shot at explaining--really explaining--how the brain works, then it cannot be theory-shy.

"It must have more than anatomy and pharmacology, more than physiology of individual neurons. It must have more than patterns of connectivity between neurons. What we need are small-scale models of subsystems and, above all, grand-scale theories of whole brain function.

"The cardinal background principle for the theorist is that there are no homunculi," continues Churchland. "There is no little person in the brain who 'sees' an inner television screen, 'hears' an inner voice, 'reads' the topographic maps, weighs reasons, decides actions, and so forth. When a person sees, it is because neurons, individually blind and individually stupid neurons, are collectively orchestrated in the appropriate manner.

"The intelligent self each human is, is essentially just the complex activity of these interconnected neurons," Churchland said.

For more information contact: Paul Lowenberg, 452-3120

(February 13, 1986)