Continuing Commentary Commentary on Ian Gold & Daniel Stoljar (1999). A neuron doctrine in the philosophy of neuroscience. BBS 22(5):809–869.
Could the neural ABC explain the mind?
Maurice K. D. Schouten a1andHuib Looren de Jong a2 a1 Faculty of Philosophy, Tilburg University, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
firstname.lastname@example.org a2 Department of Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Gold & Stoljar are right in rejecting the radical neuron doctrine, but we argue that their distinction between determination and explanation is not principled enough to support their conclusion. We claim that the notions of multiple supervenience and screening-off offer a more precise construal of the dissociation between explanation and determination that lies at the heart of the antireductionist position.