认知神经科学的心理学理论价值

从认知神经科学面临的三个挑战--(1)神经科学是“还原” 的,不能完全解释一个人的心理活动过程;（2）认知神经科学无法真正解释人的心理与行为;（3）认知神经科学只能揭示出神经事件与认知活动或行为活动的相关性--入手来讨论其心理学理论价值,阐明认知神经科学在心理学研究中的重要地位及主流趋势。同时指出,认知神经科学只是心理学学科门类中的一种,它能解决的问题也只限于特定的范围,对它要有科学理性的认识和定位。     

有关具身认知思潮的理论心理学思考

具身认知强调了心智或认知对身体及其感觉运动系统的依赖性。与传统认知心理学的符号加工模式不同的是, 它认为身体的构造和状态、身体的物理属性及其大脑与身体的特殊感觉—运动通道对认知具有塑造作用。认知既是具身的, 也是嵌入的, 大脑嵌入身体、身体嵌入环境, 构成了一体的认知系统。最初, 具身认知仅仅是一种反对笛卡尔身心二元论的哲学思潮, 经由认知科学哲学和理论心理学而逐渐进入了实验领域。具身认知研究充分利用了神经科学的方法和技术、数据和结论, 但是它并不主张把心理还原为生理或物理, 同时, 具身认知的神经科学取向仅仅给传统心理研究提供一个认识心智的新视角, 其目标并非取消行为水平的心理研究, 因此不会损害心理学的独立地位。     

THE CHRISTIAN'S DILEMMA: ORGANICISM OR MECHANISM?

Is organicism inherently Christian‐friendly, and for that matter, is mechanism inherently religion nonfriendly? They have tended to be, but the story is much more complicated. The long history of the intertwined metaphors of nature taken as an organism, versus that of nature as a machine, reveals that both metaphors have flourished in the endeavors of philosophers, scientists, and persons of faith alike. Different kinds of Christians have been receptive to both organicist and mechanistic models, just as various kinds of nonreligious scientists have been receptive to both holistic and machine metaphors. Although, it is true, organicism has been generally more attractive to persons of faith than mechanism (and vice versa), an overview of the rich and varied history of allegiances to these metaphors—religious and nonreligious alike—shows that debate is much more interesting and complex. A brief inspection of conversation surrounding recent scientific discoveries shows that this debate between metaphors is still very much alive today.     

关于“医学检验”向“检验医学”转变的思考

“医学检验”伴随着临床化学、临床血液学、临床微生物学、临床免疫学、临床分子诊断学等学科的发展,进一步走向深化与细化。然而检验与临床之间隔阂愈演愈烈的现状,显示出还原论指导思想下的“医学检验”模式将难以适应现代医学的发展趋势,进而向着以系统论为哲学指导思想的“检验医学”模式的转变,其间正经历着一场由还原论到系统论、再实现还原论与系统论辩证统一的演化过程。     

系统生物学——中西医结合的平台

通过比较系统生物学与中医理论在整体观、系统观、预测性和预防性医疗以及个体化治疗等方面的相似之处,并分析中医和西医各自的优点和不足,提出中医和现代医学在系统生物学的基础上进行整合的必然性和可能性,系统生物学是中西医结合的平台。     

‘Bound in a nutshell’: Thoughts on complexity,reductionism, and ‘infinite space’1

Pluralism is the hallmark of 21st century psychoanalytic discourse. Nevertheless, an unpleasant byproduct of pluralism is a tendency in some quarters to retreat into orthodoxy, stemming from a perceived need to shore up theoretical boundaries in the service of differentiating one theory from another. The delineation of borders places us at a risk of losing sight of the fact that genuine psychoanalytic thinking is fundamentally non‐reductionistic. Moreover, the core psychoanalytic notion of overdetermination, which Freud never abandoned throughout his career, has recently been neglected as authors argue in their communications that one point of view is better than another. Both analysts and their patients secretly are drawn to simple formulations that eschew complexity. The need to remain open to the ‘infinite space’ of meaning, motive, and causation should be a hallmark of clinical psychoanalytic practice. The author considers the implications for technique, and provides case material to illustrate some of the challenges inherent in approaching psychoanalytic work as a complex phenomenon.     

Why We Are Still Not Cognitive Psychologists: A Review of Why I Am Not A Cognitive Psychologist: A Tribute to B. F. Skinner

Any instructor of behavior analysis is no doubt aware that neuroscience, characterized by a cognitive–mentalistic approach, has substantial influence in behavioral science. As a counterpoint, behavior analysis can raise timely questions and promote critical thinking, as did Skinner (1977) in his critical analysis of cognitive psychology. Keenan and Dillenburger (2004) have produced a CD-ROM with effective audio-visual presentations to aid in the teaching of behavior analysis and in critiquing reductionistic mentalism.     

The Contribution of Empathy to Ethics

ABSTRACT

Empathy has been taken to play a crucial role in ethics at least since the Scottish Enlightenment. More recently, a revival of moral sentimentalism and empirical research on moral behavior has prompted a renewed interest in empathy and related concepts and on their contribution to moral reasoning and to moral behavior. Furthermore, empathy has recently entered our public discourse as having the power to ameliorate our social and political interactions with others.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the extent to which such a role can be actually granted. Before focusing on a positive assessment, I will delve into a few problems our ordinary concept of empathy and our commonsensical way of conceiving its connection to ethics will need to face. Specifically, I will show how an exaggerated reliance on the ordinary concept of empathy could lead to an underestimation of its biases and potential limitations (§ 2), how a naïve conception of its connection to morality can overlook relevant counterexamples (§ 3) and lead to forms of reductionism (§ 4). Overcoming this possible shortsightedness would pave the way for arguing in favor of an important – though not sufficient and possible neither necessary – role for empathy in ethics (§ 5).     

THE RELEVANCE OF EMERGENCE THEORY IN THE SCIENCE–RELIGION DIALOGUE

In this article, I call into question the relevance of emergence theories as presently used by thinkers in the science–religion discussion. Specifically, I discuss theories of emergence that have been used by both religious naturalists and proponents of panentheism. I argue for the following conclusions: (1) If we take the background theory to be metaphysical realism, then there seems to be no positive connection between the reality of emergent properties and the validity of providing reality with a religious interpretation, though one could perhaps construe an argument for the positive ontological status of emergence as a negative case for a religious worldview. (2) To be considered more plausible, religious naturalism should interpret religious discourse from the perspective of pragmatic realism. (3) Panentheistic models of divine causality are unable to avoid ontological dualism. (4) It is not obvious that emergent phenomena and/or properties are nonreducible in the ontological sense of the terms; indeed, the tension between weak and strong emergence makes it difficult for the emergentist to make ontological judgments. My general conclusion is that the concept of emergence has little metaphysical significance in the dialogue between science and theology.     

Evolution‐revolution and the cosmos

The purpose of this paper is to sketch some remarks about the evolution of psychology within contemporary cognitive sciences and its consequences on the definition of the object of a (one) scientific psychology. Arguments are stated on empirical experience from interdisciplinary research and on experimental investigations in psycholinguistics and knowledge representation.