000			03840cam a2200553Ii 4500
001			on1252763792
003			OCoLC
005			20220209192149.0
006			m d
007			cr |n|||||||||
008			210526s2021 sz a ob 001 0 eng d
020			_a9783030710408 _q(electronic bk.)
020			_a3030710408 _q(electronic bk.)
020			_z9783030710392
020			_z3030710394
024	7		_a10.1007/978-3-030-71040-8 _2doi
035			_a2935986
035			_a(OCoLC)1252763792
040			_aYDX _beng _erda _cYDX _dGW5XE _dOCLCO _dEBLCP _dN$T
049			_aMAIN
050		4	_aQP360.5 _b.B46 2021
072		7	_aJMR _2bicssc
072		7	_aPSY008000 _2bisacsh
072		7	_aJMR _2thema
082	0	4	_a612.8/233 _223
100	1		_aBenetka, Gerhard, _eauthor.
245	1	0	_aDiscussing cognitive neuroscience : _bpsychology, neurophysiology, and philosophy on the mind, body and brain / _cGerhard Benetka, Hans Werbik.
264		1	_aCham : _bSpringer, _c[2021]
264		4	_c©2021
300			_a1 online resource (171 pages) _billustrations ;
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
490	1		_aAnnals of theoretical psychology ; _vvolume 17
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
505	0		_aChapter 1. Critique of neuropsychology A polemic -- Chapter 2. Living body (Leib) or physical dataset? Antonio Damsio and Thomas Fuchs holistic conception of the human being as opposite standpoint to reductionist models -- Chapter 3. The person and the brain -- Chapter 4. The neuropsychological discourse in philosophical critique - Bennett/Hacker and the consequences -- Chapter 5. Persistent biologism and the misuse of neuropsychology an activity-theoretical contribution -- Chapter 6. Measuring free will with the readiness potential? New data on an old misunderstanding -- Chapter 7. The brain as protagonist Without the brain all is nothing -- Chapter 8. Is it possible to simulate thought
520			_aThe sciences philosophy, psychology and neuroscience share the basis that all refer to the human being. Therefore, an interdisciplinary collaboration would be desirable. The exchange of criticism is an essential requirement for interdisciplinary collaboration. Criticism must be heard and if possible considered. Indeed, criticism can be valid or unwarranted. However, whether criticism is unwarranted can only emerge from discussion and conversation. In the discussion of cognitive neuroscience, some criticism can easily be considered (such as the mereological fallacy that represents that talking about the person is substituted with talking bout the brain). Another issue for an interdisciplinary discussion of cognitive neuroscience is the interpretation of the readiness potential including re-considering Benjamin Libet's classic experiments. Additionally, a critical discussion on cognitive neuroscience must address ethical questions, such as the possibility of the abuse of neuroscientific insight.
588	0		_aOnline resource; title from PDF title page (SpringerLink, viewed May 28, 2021).
590			_aAdded to collection customer.56279.3
650		0	_aCognitive neuroscience.
655		4	_aElectronic books.
700	1		_aWerbik, Hans, _d1941- _eauthor.
776	0	8	_iPrint version: _z3030710394 _z9783030710392 _w(OCoLC)1237344527
830		0	_aAnnals of theoretical psychology (Springer (Firm)) ; _v17.
856			_uhttps://login.ezproxy.pucpr.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=2935986 _yAcceso Remoto
856	4	0	_3EBSCOhost _uhttps://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=2935986 _yAcceso en el Campus PUCPR
942			_2lcc _c7
999			_c297657 _d297657
500			_aALA COVID Relief Fund