What do you think?
Rate this book
What Makes Us Think?: A Neuroscientist and a Philosopher Argue about Ethics, Human Nature, and the Brain
Will understanding our brains help us to know our minds? Or is there an unbridgeable distance between the work of neuroscience and the workings of human consciousness? In a remarkable exchange between neuroscientist Jean-Pierre Changeux and philosopher Paul Ricoeur, this book explores the vexed territory between these divergent approaches--and comes to a deeper, more complex perspective on human nature.
Ranging across diverse traditions, from phrenology to PET scans and from Spinoza to Charles Taylor, What Makes Us Think? revolves around a central issue: the relation between the facts (or "what is") of science and the prescriptions (or "what ought to be") of ethics. Changeux and Ricoeur ask: Will neuroscientific knowledge influence our moral conduct? Is a naturally based ethics possible? Pursuing these questions, they attack key topics at the intersection of philosophy and neuroscience: What are the relations between brain states and psychological experience? Between language and truth? Memory and culture? Behavior and action? What is a mental representation? How does a sign relate to what it signifies? How might subjective experience be constructed rather than discovered? And can biological or cultural evolution be considered progressive? Throughout, Changeux and Ricoeur provide unprecedented insight into what neuroscience can--and cannot--tell us about the nature of human experience.
Changeux and Ricoeur bring an unusual depth of engagement and breadth of knowledge to each other's subject. In doing so, they make two often hostile disciplines speak to one another in surprising and instructive ways--and speak with all the subtlety and passion of conversation at its very best.
Ranging across diverse traditions, from phrenology to PET scans and from Spinoza to Charles Taylor, What Makes Us Think? revolves around a central issue: the relation between the facts (or "what is") of science and the prescriptions (or "what ought to be") of ethics. Changeux and Ricoeur ask: Will neuroscientific knowledge influence our moral conduct? Is a naturally based ethics possible? Pursuing these questions, they attack key topics at the intersection of philosophy and neuroscience: What are the relations between brain states and psychological experience? Between language and truth? Memory and culture? Behavior and action? What is a mental representation? How does a sign relate to what it signifies? How might subjective experience be constructed rather than discovered? And can biological or cultural evolution be considered progressive? Throughout, Changeux and Ricoeur provide unprecedented insight into what neuroscience can--and cannot--tell us about the nature of human experience.
Changeux and Ricoeur bring an unusual depth of engagement and breadth of knowledge to each other's subject. In doing so, they make two often hostile disciplines speak to one another in surprising and instructive ways--and speak with all the subtlety and passion of conversation at its very best.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
19 people are currently reading
369 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Pierre Changeux
69 books22 followersest un neurobiologiste français connu pour sa recherche dans plusieurs domaines de la biologie, de la structure et de la fonction des protéines (en particulier les protéines allostériques), au développement précoce du système nerveux jusqu’aux fonctions cognitives. Bien que célèbre dans les sciences biologiques pour le modèle Monod-Wyman-Changeux, il est aussi reconnu pour l’identification et la purification du récepteur nicotinique de l’acétylcholine et la théorie de l’épigénèse par stabilisation sélective des synapses. Changeux est connu du public non scientifique pour des idées concernant la relation entre l’esprit et le cerveau. Comme il l’écrit dans son livre Matière à pensée, Changeux défend la conception selon laquelle le système nerveux est actif plutôt que réactif et que l’interaction avec l’environnement, au lieu d’être instructive, résulte de la sélection de représentations internes préexistantes. Il est membre de l'Académie des sciences depuis 1986.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
January 30, 2021
كتاب گفتگوي جالبي است ميان دو حوزه ي فكري كاملاً جدا افتاده(فيلسوف-عصب شناس).
شايد بزرگترين دستاورد كتاب اين باشه كه به ما يادآوري مي كنه كه دو حوزه اي كه قرار بود به مسئله ي خاصي ورود كنند( ذهن)، به واسطه ي پرسش هاي بنيادين متفاوت، رويكردهايي با مسيرهاي متفاوت و زبان تخصصي متفاوت، چقدر از هم فاصله گرفته اند؛به طوري كه حتي نمي توانند بر سر مسير مشترك با هم به توافق برسند. لزوم نگاه كليت گرايانه و مطالعات بينارشته اي بار ديگر در اين كتاب مشخص مي شود.
شايد بزرگترين دستاورد كتاب اين باشه كه به ما يادآوري مي كنه كه دو حوزه اي كه قرار بود به مسئله ي خاصي ورود كنند( ذهن)، به واسطه ي پرسش هاي بنيادين متفاوت، رويكردهايي با مسيرهاي متفاوت و زبان تخصصي متفاوت، چقدر از هم فاصله گرفته اند؛به طوري كه حتي نمي توانند بر سر مسير مشترك با هم به توافق برسند. لزوم نگاه كليت گرايانه و مطالعات بينارشته اي بار ديگر در اين كتاب مشخص مي شود.
Read
May 5, 2013This is a very interesting book that could possibly be in the danger of not working at all, a neuroscientist and philosopher in conversation about science, ethics and the human being. But Changeux is well read in philosophy and it is my impression that Ricoeur is well read within science. And a real conversation does occur at places and I learnt much from reading this book. Not least to realise how much faith is put in the explanatory powers of the theory of evolution amongst materialists scientists, but also to see how religion is viewed by the two. Dogmatic Christianity is certainly not popular. (On the side I did get quite curious to know Changeux's journey from, what he seemed to define as, confessing Christian to materialist humanist).
There is a constant difference in perspective that comes through continously though. And that is Ricoeur's critique of the sciences of the mind/human being. He asks the question whether knowledge of the brain as an object really helps us to understand our own experience of our experience (maybe the qualia? Although that word is never mentioned, rather "substrate"). I think it can be illustrated very easily, if I understand the question properly. Changeux argues that we can know very much about what mental states are active and what parts of the brain reacts in different situations and what that represents in the human's experience and thinking. But I think Ricoeur's critique is that good old question of whether "what is red for me, really is experienced as red for you". Even if the same centra in the brain is active when both of us see red, how can we be sure that it is being experienced in the same way by both people? We might be tempted to say that of course it must be, the brain reacts in the same way. But that seems to me to beg the question, or use what you want to prove as argument for your proof in the first place.
There is a very interesting discussion about ethics without religion/God and Changeux is totally thinking within an evolutionary framework. However, I think Ricoeur raises some interesting questions about how to sort between the impulses towards evil and impulses towards good that comes within the human being. Changeux has full belief that this can be done through reason and science. But I thought science was without values? We might know more about what our brain is doing, and how we we as human beings react and act in certain moral situations, but does that really mean that we are better in really doing what is good? Ricoeur does not want to use the concept of original sin, because he thinks goodness is more fundamental and original in that way, but even though the exact word might not be used, I would like to argue that the underlying concept is making itself known whenever we think too idealistic about humanity's own capacity for solving her own problems.
There is a constant difference in perspective that comes through continously though. And that is Ricoeur's critique of the sciences of the mind/human being. He asks the question whether knowledge of the brain as an object really helps us to understand our own experience of our experience (maybe the qualia? Although that word is never mentioned, rather "substrate"). I think it can be illustrated very easily, if I understand the question properly. Changeux argues that we can know very much about what mental states are active and what parts of the brain reacts in different situations and what that represents in the human's experience and thinking. But I think Ricoeur's critique is that good old question of whether "what is red for me, really is experienced as red for you". Even if the same centra in the brain is active when both of us see red, how can we be sure that it is being experienced in the same way by both people? We might be tempted to say that of course it must be, the brain reacts in the same way. But that seems to me to beg the question, or use what you want to prove as argument for your proof in the first place.
There is a very interesting discussion about ethics without religion/God and Changeux is totally thinking within an evolutionary framework. However, I think Ricoeur raises some interesting questions about how to sort between the impulses towards evil and impulses towards good that comes within the human being. Changeux has full belief that this can be done through reason and science. But I thought science was without values? We might know more about what our brain is doing, and how we we as human beings react and act in certain moral situations, but does that really mean that we are better in really doing what is good? Ricoeur does not want to use the concept of original sin, because he thinks goodness is more fundamental and original in that way, but even though the exact word might not be used, I would like to argue that the underlying concept is making itself known whenever we think too idealistic about humanity's own capacity for solving her own problems.
August 15, 2014
کل کل یه نوروساینتیست با فیلسوف که من فقط دیدم هی بحث بدون نتیجه و با ارجاع به یه خروار منبع فرانسوی بی نتیجه می مونه پس احتمالاً بعداً دوباره باید خوندش
December 31, 2025
Ödevini son güne yetiştirmeye çalışan öğrenci psikolojisi ile okuduğumdan mıdır, bir şey beni tam kitaptaki düşünceye bağlayamadı. Özünde, çok ilginç ve daha önce denenmeyen bir şeyi yapmaya çalışmış yazar. Ana amaç, "İnsan neden ve nasıl düşünür? Düşünme beyinle mi, bilinçle mi açıklanır? Ahlak doğuştan mı yoksa kültürel mi?" gibi soruları denklemden din ve inanç parametrelerini çıkararak değerlendirmeye çalışmış. Ama bence din ve inanç da kültürün ayrılmaz bir parçası olduğu için tam oturmayan kısım da burası gibi geldi. Yani tam olarak mükemmel işleyecek veya hiç çalışmayacak bir çerçeve çizmiş yazar. Kitapta en sevdiğim nokta yazar fikirlerini ve savlarını mümkün mertebe bilimsel ve biyolojik, özellikle nörobiyolojik kanıtlara dayandırmaya çalışmış.
July 2, 2015
The answer to the question of the title...is this book. This book has made me think. A lot. While occasionally I found the discussion lacking (at the beginning, understandably, when two distinct discourses collide there is often a period of misunderstanding due to their different vocabularies and points of reference, but in other places as well), the lack itself was often a stimulant to more thought than sometimes the points of greatest cohesion. This book is well worth reading for people of all educated fields (though I'd hardly say it's for everyone). It marks an important discussion between fields that culturally seem at odds with each other, however their desire to come to some mutual understanding despite differences in discipline is commendable and a true example of the ethical conduct that they discuss at the end.
May 29, 2016
کتابی که ماحصل ترجمه استاد عزیزم دکتر عبدالرحمن نجلرحیم٬عصبشناس و عصبپژوه و بابک احمدی است؛ کتابی که در واقع بحث و گفتگویی آزاد میان یک نوروساینتیست معروف (ژان پیر ژانژو) و فیلسوفی پرآوازه (پل ریکور) درباره کارکرد مغز انسان٬ساز و کار تفکر و آگاهی و جنبههای مختلف فلسفی و اجتماعی و... آنهاست و منطق درونی این افراد را در مواجهه با این موضوعات به خوبی نشان میدهد. نکته جالب اینکه دکتر نجلرحیم کل گفتههای شانژو و بابک احمدی کل صحبتهای پل ریکور را به فارسی برگردان کرده و در پایان هر فصل ترجمههای همدیگر را خوانده و ویرایش کردهاند. ترجمه نسبتا قابل قبولی است اما شاید درک و جذابیت مورد انتظار یک خواننده معمولی و ناآشنا به متن (و بخصوص موضوعات مورد صحبت) را با خود به همراه نداشته باشد؛ با این حال اگر به فلسفه و مباحث علوماعصاب٬آگاهی٬ذهن و... علاقهمندید توصیه میکنم حتما این کتاب رو مطالعه کنید چرا که مباحث و موضوعات جالبی را به شکلی عمیق مورد بحث قرار میدهد
Read
December 6, 2017مشکلات اساسی در ارتبطات بین این دو نفر وجود داشت که تا حد زیادی معناشناختی بود
به هر حال به نظر من یک Semantic gap بزرگ وجود داره
خیلی راحت موقع خواندن خسته میشوید چون در مباحثه بین دو نفر هرکس راه خودش را میرود و بخشهایی که واقعا بتوان یک پل برقرار کرد یا حتی فهمید چرا نمیتوان چنین پلی وجود داشته باشد بسیار بسیار اندک است.
من از خواندن کتاب لذت نبردم
به هر حال به نظر من یک Semantic gap بزرگ وجود داره
خیلی راحت موقع خواندن خسته میشوید چون در مباحثه بین دو نفر هرکس راه خودش را میرود و بخشهایی که واقعا بتوان یک پل برقرار کرد یا حتی فهمید چرا نمیتوان چنین پلی وجود داشته باشد بسیار بسیار اندک است.
من از خواندن کتاب لذت نبردم
January 30, 2010
Simple book with substance.
January 12, 2017
çok iddialı. ama bilindik içerik. yine de bakılabilir.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews