|Professor: William Bechtel||Office Hours: Thursday, 3:30-4:45 & by appointment|
|Office: HSS 8076||Email: firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Telephone: 822-4461||Webpage: mechanism.ucsd.edu/~bill/teaching/w17/phil151|
1. Course Description
Understanding brains, whether in humans or other animals, remains one of the greatest challenges in science. Still, enormous progress has been made as neuroscientists have developed a wide range of research tools for investigating the brain and theoretical perspectives in terms of which they interpret the results of those investigations. This course approaches neuroscience from the perspective of philosophy of science, seeking to understand the strategies scientists use and the character of the knowledge obtained. To understand how current knowledge was obtained, we will examine major examples from the history of neuroscience. We will also, though, be interested in strategies neuroscients are currently pursuing or those they might pursue in the future. The objective in examining the research in neuroscience is not to learn all the details of the research, but to put it into perspective. In reading the assignments, you should not focus on memorization, but on figuring out and characterizing how the research is being conducted. Philosophy involves formulating questions, offering possible answers, and critically assessing these answers. It is an activity, not just a body of knowledge and like all activities, is learned through practice. There will be many opportunities for class discussion during the quarter (not just on classes marked as discussion classes), and you should take advantage of these by trying out questions, answers, and criticisms.
2. Course Requirements
Class attendance is mandatory. Missing classes more than very occasionally will result in a reduction in your grade. To get the most out of the class, it is absolutely essential that you come to class having read the assigned material and being prepared to discuss it. This does not mean that you are expected to understand everything in the assigned reading prior to class. Part of the function of classes will be to clarify and interpret the assigned readings. Clickers will be used in class. Some clicker questions will test basic ideas from the assigned reading. On these questions, one point will be awarded for ansering the question and a second point for answering correctly. Other questions will not have a specific answer designated and will serve to foster discussion. Two points will be awarded for answering each such question. A commulative score based on clicker responses will count for 10% of your final grade.
To promote engagement with the reading and to foster subsequent discussions in class, you will be required to email comments or questions for those classes marked with an asterisk on the Schedule of Class Meetings and Readings below. These emails should be one paragraph in length. You can write about anything you found interesting, puzzling, strange, clearly wrong, provocative, etc. When there are readings assigned on the day of the assignment, the assignment should addres one of the readings. If the assignment falls on a discussion class, the assignment should address the readings in the previous classes. These assignments will be graded as acceptable or unacceptable. To ensure that your submission is acceptable, your comment or question must demonstrate that you have read and thought about the assigned material. (Your paragraph should focus on one specific part of the reading--do not try to discuss everything.) These must be submitted as email (as plain text, not as attachments) to email@example.com by 7AM on days marked with an asterisk in the schedule of classes below. 10% of your final grade will be based on these email comments.
There will be two exams, a mid-term and a final. The mid-term will count for 25% of your final grade; the final will count for 30%. Exams will include both short answer and essay questions and the set of questions will be distributed approximately one week before the exams. You will also need to write one 3-5 page paper that will count for 25% of your grade. The paper, due by NOON on Friday, March 10, must be on one of the topics that will be assigned in class. If possible, the paper should be submitted in Word by email attachment (please be sure to check for viruses before submitting your file!) to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Above average or below average participation in class discussions can result in a raising or lowering of your final grade from what is determined by the above percentages on these other assignments.
All reading assignments can be found by following links on the web site. See the schedule of classes and readings below. Those items that are on license to UCSD may only be available if you are on campus or set up a virtual private network (directions on doing so are avaiable through Academic Computing Services).
If you do not already own one, you will also need to purchase an i>clicker student response transmiter. These transmitters, informally called “clickers,” are available at the UCSD bookstore. Make sure to get an i>clicker and not a different system (e.g., H-ITT or PRS). For more information, visit http://acms.ucsd.edu/services/classroom-support/clickers.html.
4. Academic honesty
Integrity of scholarship is essential for an academic community. The University expects that both faculty and students will honor this principle and in so doing protect the validity of University intellectual work. For students, this means that all academic work must be done by the individual who submits it, without unauthorized aid of any kind. This means that on exams you will not use any external resources, including crib sheets, cell phones, etc. All papers, emails, etc., that you submit must be written by you in your own words. If you need to quote someone, be sure to use quotation marks and identify the source. In preparing for exams, papers, etc., you are encouraged to work with your peers. But the actual writing must be yours. You may ask others to read and provide feedback on your writing, but they should not re-write the text for you. Rather, they can provide comments and you undertake the rewriting.
5. Schedule of Classes and Readings
Note: This schedule of reading assignments is tentative and subject to revision. ]When powerpoints from lectures are available, there will be a link from the lecture title to the pdf file. Dates with asterisks are dates on which comments/question paragraphs on the reading are due. These comments/questions must be sent to email@example.com by 7 AM on the dates indicated.
January 10: Introductory Class: Metaphors applied to the brain
January 12: Neurophilosophical Foundations
Bechtel, W, Mandik, P., and Mundale, J. Philosophy meets the Neurosciences. Chapter 1, pp. 4-22 of Philosophy and the Neurosciences: A Reader. Edited by William Bechtel, Pete Mandik, Jennifer Mundale, and Robert Stufflebeam. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
*January 17: 19th Century Roots of Behavioral Neuroscience
Gall, Francis (1804). Letter from Dr. F. J. Gall, to Joseph Fr[eiherr] von Retzer, upon the Functions of the Brain, in Man and Animals
Flourens, Pierre (1846). Phenomenology examined. Section 1.
Broca, Paul (1861). Remarks on the Seat of the Faculty of Articulate Language, Followed by an Observation of Aphemia. Bulletin de la Société Anatomique, 6, 330-357.
Wernicke, Carl (1885). Recent works on aphasia
January 19: 19th and 20th Century Roots of Foundational Neuroscience
Mundale, J. (2001) Neuroanatomical Foundations of Cognition: Connecting the Neuronal Level with the Study of Higher Brain Areas. Chapter 3, pp. 37-54 of Philosophy and the Neurosciences: A Reader. Edited by William Bechtel, Pete Mandik, Jennifer Mundale, and Robert Stufflebeam. Oxford: Blackwell.
Huxley, A. F. (2002). From overshoot to voltage clamp. Trends in Neuroscience, 25, 553-558.
*January 24: Discussion class
January 26: The Neuroscience of Vision I
Hubel, D. H. and Wiesel, T. N. (1979). Brain Mechanisms of Vision. Scientific American, 241, 150-162.
Bechtel, W. (2001). Decomposing and Localizing Vision: An Exemplar for Cognitive Neuroscience--Chapter 13, pp. 225-233, Philosophy and the Neurosciences: A Reader. Edited by William Bechtel, Pete Mandik, Jennifer Mundale, and Robert Stufflebeam. Oxford: Blackwell.
*January 31: The Neuroscience of Vision II
Mishkin, M., Ungerleider, L. G., and Macko, K. A. (1983). Object Vision and Spatial Vision: Two Cortical Pathways. Trends in Neurosciences, 6, 414-417.
Bechtel, W. (2001). Decomposing and Localizing Vision: An Exemplar for Cognitive Neuroscience--Chapter 13, pp. 233-239
Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2008). Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46, 774-785 (read up through 779)
February 2: The Neuroscience of Vision III
van Essen, D. C., & Gallant, J. L. (1994). Neural mechanisms of form and motion processing in the primate visual system. Neuron, 13, 1-10.
Bechtel, W. (2001). Decomposing and Localizing Vision: An Exemplar for Cognitive Neuroscience--Chapter 13, pp. 239-244
*February 7: Discussion class
February 9: Midterm Exam
*February 14: Studying the Human Brain: EEG and fMRI
Bunge, S. A. and Kahn, I. (2009). Cognition: An overview of Neuroimaging techniques. Encyclopedia of Neuroscience, 1063-1067.
Roskies, Adina L. (2007). Are Neuroimages Like Photographs of the Brain? Philosophy of Science, 74, 860-872
Klein, C. (2010). Philosophical Issues in Neuroimaging. Philosophy Compass, 5, 186-198
February 16: Representation I
Bechtel, W. (2001). Representations: From Neural systems to Cognitive Systems--Chapter 18 in Philosophy and the Neurosciences: A Reader. Edited by William Bechtel, Pete Mandik, Jennifer Mundale, and Robert Stufflebeam. Oxford: Blackwell.
Grush, R. (1997) The Architecture of Representation Philosophical Psychology, 10, 5-24.
*February 21: Representation II
Akins, K. (1996). On sensory systems and the 'aboutness' of mental states. The Journal of Philosophy, 93, 337-372.
Chemero, A. (2001). Dynamical explanation and mental representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 141-142.
February 23: Representations III
Burnston, D. C. (2016). Computational neuroscience and localized neural function. Synthese, 193, 3741-3762.
*February 28: Discussion class
March 2: Reduction I
Churchland, P. M., & Churchland, P. S. (1990). Intertheoretic reduction: A neuroscientist's field guide. Seminars in the Neurosciences, 2, 249-256.
McCauley, R. N. (1996). Explanatory pluralism and the coevolution of theories in science. In R. N. McCauley (Ed.), The Churchlands and their critics (pp. 17-47). Oxford: Blackwell.
Churchland, P. M. & Churchland, P. S., (1996). McCauley's Demand for a Co-level Competitor. In R. N. McCauley (Ed.), The Churchlands and their critics (pp. 222-231). Oxford: Blackwell.
*March 7: Reduction II
Bickle, J. (2006). Reducing mind to molecular pathways: explicating the reductionism implicit in current cellular and molecular neuroscience. Synthese, 151, 411-434. (Sections 1, 3-5; skim 2)
Bechtel, W. (2009). Molecules, systems, and behavior: Another view of memory consolidation. In Bickle, J. (Editor), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Neuroscience, (pp. 13-40). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Sections 1-3; skim 4)
March 9: Connectomics
Jabr, Ferris (2012) The Connectome Debate: Is Mapping the Mind of a Worm Worth It? Scientific American
Sporns, O. (2011). The human connectome: a complex network. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1224, 109-125.
March 10: Course paper due by noon
March 14: Neurodynamics
Bechtel, W. (2013). The endogenously active brain: The need for an alternative cognitive architecture. Philosophia Scientia, 17, 3-30.
*March 16: Discussion class
March 23: Final Exam, 7:00-10:00