Talk:Neurophilosophy

message: I could use some help with this if anyone wants to contribute. KSchutte 20:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: hep

message: This page needs a lot of cleaning up and elaboration. At the moment, everything posted here is pure speculation. The links and available information posted are inadequate to prove that this is in fact a scientific field of study at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jansandaas (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up and Elaboration

message: "This scientific approach contrasts strongly with idealism, and/or the appeal to the existence of a Platonic soul that thinks, feels and desires." This is a complete misrepresentation of philosophy of mind proponents contrary to neurophilosophy.  
189.146.4.89 (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Added NPOV

message: Troped (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Patricia Churchland and Paul Churchland are more relevant figures than Dennett to neurophilosophy.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a great source.  By all means please edit this article. I'll do my best to pitch in over the next few weeks. Shanata (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neurophilosophy and the Churchland's: Planned Update

message: I have added some bits and removed others where I found it necessary. I think I am able to justify these removals, so please inquire if you feel something of the old text is missing.
Prominence of philosophers is redundant and often highly subjective. A list of names has been provided instead.
The rewrite also includes an attempt at adressing the POV dispute. The eliminative materialist view has been eliminated from the article. It is not a central tenet to the philosophy of neuroscience. It may be added later though as an example of a particular viewpoint. Dualist neurophilosophers do exist, for instance: John Carew Eccles. The notice has been kept though.
Ostracon (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: "Empirical (not transcendental) neurophilosophy"
what the heck would transcendental neurophilosophy be? I am not a wikipedian, otherwise I would delete this. It doesn't appear anywhere else on the net, apparent from lifts from this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.50.211 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first sentence 

message: The article is a huge mess, massive violations of  WP:SYNTH including misinterpretationd of the sources cited  and up to outright irrelevant bullshit gobbledygook. I am going to clean this up big time, because obviously nobody was reading this seriously. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Neurophilosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116115958/http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwphi/9572.html to http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwphi/9572.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060202035812/http://www.petemandik.com/neurophil/neurophil.html to http://www.petemandik.com/neurophil/neurophil.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029043758/http://artsci.wustl.edu/~neuro/PhilNeuroBiblio.html to http://artsci.wustl.edu/~neuro/PhilNeuroBiblio.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)