Neurociencia y la personaHacia una circularidad positiva entre la Neurociencia y las Humanidades

  1. JAVIER BERNÁCER 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Navarra
    info

    Universidad de Navarra

    Pamplona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02rxc7m23

Journal:
Almogaren: revista del Centro Teológico de Las Palmas

ISSN: 1695-2669

Year of publication: 2019

Issue Title: XIII Jornadas de Teología 2019

Issue: 64

Pages: 51-81

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Almogaren: revista del Centro Teológico de Las Palmas

Abstract

Neuroscience has taken on the challenge of facing the understanding of nature’s most complex organ: the human brain. In recent years, moreover, many believe it will make us escape from our great enemy: death. Consequently, neuroscience can get carried away by a negative circularity and aspire to answer the great questions of the human being from itself. One of these questions is what it is to be a person. The author briefly reviews the concept of person throughout philosophy and propose the skeleton to build a positive circularity between neuroscience and humanities, stating what kind of neuroscience is necessary to get to understand the person. He shows that interdisciplinary dialogue is the right path for such positive circularity, especially in such ambitious questions as what it is to be a person.

Bibliographic References

  • Amengual Coll, Gabriel. 2015. La Persona Humana. El Debate Sobre Su Concepto. Madrid: Síntesis.
  • Anderson, Michael L. 2003. “Embodied Cognition: A Field Guide”. Artificial Intelligence 149 (1): 91–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00054-7.
  • Bernácer, J., and J.M. Giménez-Amaya. 2013. On Habit Learning in Neuroscience and Free Will. Is Science Compatible with Free Will?: Exploring Free Will and Consciousness in the Light of Quantum Physics and Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5212-6_12.
  • Blackmore, Susan. 2007. “Mind over Matter?” The Guardian - Medical Research (Opinion), 2007. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/28/mindovermatter.
  • Chugani, Harry T., Michael E. Phelps, and John C. Mazziotta. 1987. “Positron Emission Tomography Study of Human Brain Functional Development.” I 22 (4): 487–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.410220408.
  • Clark, Andy, and David Chalmers. 1998. “The Extended Mind.” Analysis 58 (1): 7–19.
  • Clayton, Philip. 2002. “Neuroscience, the Person, and God: An Emergentist Account.” In Neuroscience and the Person. Scientific Perspective on Divine Action. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Publications.
  • Farah, Martha J., and Andrea S. Heberlein. 2007. “Personhood and Neuroscience: Naturalizing or Nihilating?” American Journal of Bioethics 7 (1): 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160601064199.
  • Fletcher, Joseph. 1979. Humanhood: Essays on Biomedical Ethics. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
  • Froese, Tom, and Ezequiel A. Di Paolo. 2011. “The Enactive Approach: Theoretical Sketches from Cell to Society.” Pragmatics & Cognition 19 (1): 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19.1.01fro.
  • Fuchs, Thomas. 2018. Ecology of the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Giménez-Amaya, José Ignacio Murillo; José Manuel. 2008. “Tiempo, Conciencia y Libertad.” Acta Philosophica 17.
  • Hadariová, Lucia, Matej Vesteg, Vladimír Hampl, and Juraj Krajčovič. 2018. “Reductive Evolution of Chloroplasts in Non-Photosynthetic Plants, Algae and Protists.” Current Genetics 64 (2): 365–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-017-0761-0.
  • Haggard, Patrick, and Martin Eimer. 1999. “On the Relation between Brain Potentials and the Awareness of Voluntary Movements.” Experimental Brain Research 126 (1): 128–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210050722.
  • Haugeland, J. 1993. “Mind Embodied and Embedded.” In Mind and Cognition: 1993 International Symposium, 233–67. Academia Sinica.
  • Huettel, Scott A., AW Song, and G McCarthy. 2004. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Sunderland, Massachussets: Sinauer Associates.
  • Koenig-Robert, Robert, and Joel Pearson. 2019. “Decoding the Contents and Strength of Imagery before Volitional Engagement.” Scientific Reports 9: 3904.
  • Laplane, Lucie, Paolo Mantovani, Ralph Adolphs, Hasok Chang, and Alberto Mantovani. 2019. “Why Science Needs Philosophy” 116 (10): 3948–52. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900357116.
  • Libet, B. 1999. “Do We Have Free Will?” Journal of Consciousness Studies 6 (8–9): 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381641.003.0002.
  • Libet, B., E. W. Wright, and C. A. Gleason. 1982. “Readiness-Potentials Preceding Unrestricted ‘spontaneous’ vs. Pre-Planned Voluntary Acts.” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 54 (3): 322–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(82)90181-X.
  • Logothetis, N. K., M. Auguth, A. Oeltermann, Jon Pauls, and T. Trinath. 2001. “A Neurophysiological Investigation of the Basis of the BOLD Signal in FMRI.” Nature 412 (6843): 150–57. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412150a0.html.
  • Luntz, Stephen. 2019. “Scientists Can Read Your Mind before You Know You’ve Made a Decision.” Iflscience. 2019. https://www.iflscience.com/brain/scientists-can-read-your-mind-before-you-know-youve-made-a-decision/?fbclid=IwAR3yB59gFWR9Rxnd1Oc_SammWqBwFiJJMoKHdddzv5yNwL8T3-QVPvp22ik.
  • Menon, V., and S. Crottaz-Herbette. 2005. “Combined EEG and FMRI Studies of Human Brain Function.” International Review of Neurobiology 66: 291–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074-7742(05)66010-2.
  • Mukamel, Roy, and Itzhak Fried. 2012. “Human Intracranial Recordings and Cognitive Neuroscience.” Annual Review of Psychology 63 (1): 511–37. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145401.
  • Pashler, Harold, and Eric Jan Wagenmakers. 2012. “Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (6): 528–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612465253.
  • Poldrack, Russell A., Chris I. Baker, Joke Durnez, Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski, Paul M. Matthews, Marcus R. Munafò, Thomas E. Nichols, Jean Baptiste Poline, Edward Vul, and Tal Yarkoni. 2017. “Scanning the Horizon: Towards Transparent and Reproducible Neuroimaging Research.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 18 (2): 115–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.167.
  • Powell, Kendall. 2006. “How Does the Teenage Brain Work?” Nature 442: 865–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/442865a.
  • Russell, Robert John, Nancey Murphy, Theo C. Meyering, and Michael A. Arbib. 2002. Neuroscience and the Person. Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Publications.
  • Tomasello, M., and M. J. Farrar. 1986. “Joint Attention and Early Language.” Child Development 57 (6): 1454–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1986.tb00470.x.
  • Wagner, Nils-Frederic, and Georg Northoff. 2014. “Habits: Bridging the Gap between Personhood and Personal Identity.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8 (May): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00330.
  • Wise, Steve. 2002. “‘Practical Autonomy’ Entitles Some Animals to Rights.” Nature 416: 785. https://doi.org/10.1038/416785a.
  • Wolff, Annemarie, Daniel A Di, Giovanni Javier, and Takashi Nakao. 2019. “The Temporal Signature of Self : Temporal Measures of Resting- State EEG Predict Self-Consciousness,” no. September 2018: 789–803. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24412.
  • Yang, Yongjie, and Rob Jackson. 2019. “Astrocyte Identity: Evolutionary Perspectives on Astrocyte Functions and Heterogeneity.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology 56: 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2018.11.006.
Data source: Dialnet