The CEU Department of Philosophy cordially invites you to a talk
by
István Aranyosi (Bilkent University)
on
`Nerve and analysis -- conceptual analysis in neuroscience`
Tuesday, 21 May, 2013, 5.30 PM, Zrinyi 14, Room 412
ABSTRACT
Contemporary philosophers of mind tend to subscribe to a dichotomy
between so-called empirical and so-called analytic or a priori methods
of philosophical research, which, in their view, leads to a current
chasm: Armchair versus Empirical philosophy of mind. I argue that this
is a false dichotomy and the idea of a chasm is misplaced. I will base
my argument on the early history (19th and early 20th Century) of
neuroscience, namely, the birth experimental neurophysiology, where we
can identify an essential a priori component in scientific reasoning. I
then apply those pieces of reasoning to some extant problems in the
philosophy of mind, thus offering some elegant solutions to them.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "SEBASTIAN GALLES, NURIA" <nuria.sebastian(a)upf.edu>
> Subject: Advert predoctoral and postoctoral positions- UPF Barcelona
> Date: 7 May 2013 11:59:42 am CEST
>
>
>
> I have attached two adverts for one phd and one postdoctoral positions starting September 2013. These positions are funded by a newly-funded ERC Advanced Grant starting september 2013. The project addresses the interplay between attention and language mechanisms in the first years of life.
>
> Please feel free to circulate this email to relevant colleagues and students, in particular in the EU.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Nuria
The CEU Department of Philosophy cordially invites you to a talk
by
István Aranyosi (Bilkent University)
on
`Nerve and analysis -- conceptual analysis in neuroscience`
Tuesday, 21 May, 2013, 5.30 PM, Zrinyi 14, Room 412
ABSTRACT
Contemporary philosophers of mind tend to subscribe to a dichotomy
between so-called empirical and so-called analytic or a priori methods
of philosophical research, which, in their view, leads to a current
chasm: Armchair versus Empirical philosophy of mind. I argue that this
is a false dichotomy and the idea of a chasm is misplaced. I will base
my argument on the early history (19th and early 20th Century) of
neuroscience, namely, the birth experimental neurophysiology, where we
can identify an essential a priori component in scientific reasoning. I
then apply those pieces of reasoning to some extant problems in the
philosophy of mind, thus offering some elegant solutions to them.