scholarly journals Context-Dependence and Context-Invariance in the Neural Coding of Intentional Action

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Wisniewski
2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Frezza ◽  
Pierluigi Zoccolotti

Abstract The convincing argument that Brette makes for the neural coding metaphor as imposing one view of brain behavior can be further explained through discourse analysis. Instead of a unified view, we argue, the coding metaphor's plasticity, versatility, and robustness throughout time explain its success and conventionalization to the point that its rhetoric became overlooked.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 61-76
Author(s):  
Leslie D. Grush ◽  
Frederick J. Gallun ◽  
Curtis J. Billings
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Karin Nisenbaum

The concluding chapter draws on the story of Rosenzweig’s near conversion to Christianity and return to Judaism to explain why, for Kant and his heirs, what is at issue in reason’s conflict with itself is our ability to affirm both the value of the world and of human action in the world. The chapter explains why Rosenzweig came to view the conflict of reason as the manifestation of a more fundamental tension between one’s selfhood and one’s worldliness, which could only be dissolved by understanding human action in the world as the means by which God is both cognized and partly realized. To make Rosenzweig’s ideas more accessible, the chapter compares them with contemporary interpretations of Kant’s views on the nature of practical knowledge and (intentional) action. It also shows how the book’s take on the issues that shaped the contours of post-Kantian German Idealism can help us see that the conflict of reason can be regarded as the underlying concern that recent competing interpretations of this period share.


Author(s):  
Severin Schroeder

One aspect of Schopenhauer’s doctrine that the world is will, which can be assessed independently of his more ambitious metaphysical ideas, is the claim that our own agency provides us with a full understanding of causation which then permeates and structures our experience of the world in general. In this chapter, the author argues that this claim can be defended against Hume’s well-known objections because they are based on a volitional theory of voluntary action, which Schopenhauer rightly rejected. Schopenhauer quite plausibly located an immediate experience of causation between at least some kinds of motives and our consequent actions. However, he was wrong in suggesting that this experience might be the source of our understanding of causation since intentional action already presupposes that understanding and cannot provide it. It is more plausible to argue that an understanding of causation is derived from our bodily encounters with material objects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document