Philosophy of Cognitive Neuroscience
A.Y. 2022/2023
Learning objectives
The course aims to provide students with a rigorous knowledge of the main philosophical topics in cognitive neuroscience
Expected learning outcomes
Knowledge and understanding
At the end of the course, students will
- know the key topics in philosophy of cognitive neuroscience
- master the philosophical and cognitive neuroscience literature
- understand the theoretical and experimental implications of the main debated issues in cognitive neuroscience.
Ability to apply knowledge and understanding
At the end of the course, students will be able
- to develop a philosophically sound approach to cognitive neuroscience
- to integrate conceptual analysis and experimental methods
- to build theoretically and empirically grounded arguments
At the end of the course, students will
- know the key topics in philosophy of cognitive neuroscience
- master the philosophical and cognitive neuroscience literature
- understand the theoretical and experimental implications of the main debated issues in cognitive neuroscience.
Ability to apply knowledge and understanding
At the end of the course, students will be able
- to develop a philosophically sound approach to cognitive neuroscience
- to integrate conceptual analysis and experimental methods
- to build theoretically and empirically grounded arguments
Lesson period: Second semester
Assessment methods: Esame
Assessment result: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Single course
This course cannot be attended as a single course. Please check our list of single courses to find the ones available for enrolment.
Course syllabus and organization
Single session
Lesson period
Second semester
The lessons will be held in dual mode. The face-to-face lessons will allow the participation of students connected with Teams as well as students in the classroom. Teams' channel code. The recordings of the lessons will remain available for the entire semester. Students wishing to participate in face-to-face lessons must refer to the following University provisions: https://www.unimi.it/en/study/bachelor-and-master-study/following-your-programme-study/teaching-activities-campus
Students wishing to participate in MSTeams lessons must refer to the following technical guides: https://www.unimi.it/en/study/student-services/technology-and-online-services/microsoft-office-365-education
To participate in the exam sessions, students must refer to the following provisions:
https://www.unimi.it/en/study/bachelor-and-master-study/following-your-programme-study/sitting-exams
Students wishing to participate in MSTeams lessons must refer to the following technical guides: https://www.unimi.it/en/study/student-services/technology-and-online-services/microsoft-office-365-education
To participate in the exam sessions, students must refer to the following provisions:
https://www.unimi.it/en/study/bachelor-and-master-study/following-your-programme-study/sitting-exams
Course syllabus
(WHY) DO COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE & PHILOSOPHY MATTER FOR EACH OTHER?
Many of the topics which philosophers have been grappling with for centuries — morality, agency, consciousness, reasoning, and many more — are also topics of central importance to psychologists, neuroscientists, anthropologists and other researchers across the cognitive sciences. What, if anything, do these different disciplinary perspectives have to offer each other? In this course, we we will discuss the philosophical underpinnings of cognitive neuroscience, and use detailed case studies to evaluate how philosophy and other disciplines with the cognitive sciences can work together and benefit each other.
We will begin by tracing the historical development of psychology and neuroscience leading up to the cognitive revolution and beyond, and then focus on three exemplary areas of interdisciplinary cooperation:
A) Action
What differentiates mere bodily movement from action? What are intentions and how do they relate to actions? How do reasoning and decision-making shape action?
B) Joint action
What distinguishes joint action from merely acting in parallel with others? What are shared intentions, and what role do they play in joint action? What role does commitment play in constituting or enabling joint action? Is joint action inherently normative, giving rise to obligations and entitlements, and how might this differ across cultures?
C) Moral psychology
What are the cognitive and neural processes that underpin our moral judgments and our moral intuitions? How do they differ across cultures? Are there two or more distinct moral systems? Could scientific discoveries undermine, or support, ethical principles?
The course is open to all students of the master course in Philosophical Sciences and to all students of other master courses of the University of Milan who are interested understanding an ubiquitous phenomenon such as joint action from a theoretical and empirical point of view.
Many of the topics which philosophers have been grappling with for centuries — morality, agency, consciousness, reasoning, and many more — are also topics of central importance to psychologists, neuroscientists, anthropologists and other researchers across the cognitive sciences. What, if anything, do these different disciplinary perspectives have to offer each other? In this course, we we will discuss the philosophical underpinnings of cognitive neuroscience, and use detailed case studies to evaluate how philosophy and other disciplines with the cognitive sciences can work together and benefit each other.
We will begin by tracing the historical development of psychology and neuroscience leading up to the cognitive revolution and beyond, and then focus on three exemplary areas of interdisciplinary cooperation:
A) Action
What differentiates mere bodily movement from action? What are intentions and how do they relate to actions? How do reasoning and decision-making shape action?
B) Joint action
What distinguishes joint action from merely acting in parallel with others? What are shared intentions, and what role do they play in joint action? What role does commitment play in constituting or enabling joint action? Is joint action inherently normative, giving rise to obligations and entitlements, and how might this differ across cultures?
C) Moral psychology
What are the cognitive and neural processes that underpin our moral judgments and our moral intuitions? How do they differ across cultures? Are there two or more distinct moral systems? Could scientific discoveries undermine, or support, ethical principles?
The course is open to all students of the master course in Philosophical Sciences and to all students of other master courses of the University of Milan who are interested understanding an ubiquitous phenomenon such as joint action from a theoretical and empirical point of view.
Prerequisites for admission
No specific preliminary knowledge is required.
Teaching methods
Lectures
Debate and discussion
Debate and discussion
Teaching Resources
Reading and assignments for 9 ECTS
Attending students will be provided with handouts, materials and papers during the course. All teaching materials will be made available on TEAMS for non-attending students.
Reading and assignments for 6 ECTS
Students may choose two of three topics included in 9ECTS program.
Bratman, M. E. (1993). Shared intention. Ethics, 104, 97-113.
Bratman, M. E. (2014). Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together. Oxford: Oxford University Press, chapters 1-3.
Butterfill, S. A., & Sinigaglia, C. (2014). Intention and motor representation in purposive action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88(1), 119-145
Davidson 1963 'Actions, Reasons, and Causes' Journal of Philosophy 60: 685-700
Gilbert, M. P. (1990). Walking together: A paradigmatic social phenomenon. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 15, 1-14.
Gilbert, M. P. (2013). Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, chapters 1, 3-4.
Gold, N. & Sugden, R. (2007). Collective intentions and team agency. Journal of Philosophy, 104(3), 109-137.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55-130). Academic Press
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44, 389-400. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105-2108. doi:10.1126/science.1062872
Ludwig, K. (2016). From Individual to Plural Agency: Collective Action. Oxford University Press, chapters 12, 13, 15.
Pacherie, E. (2013), Intentional joint agency: Shared intention lite. Synthese 190 (10):1817-1839.
Pacherie, E. (2008). The phenomenology of action: A conceptual framework. Cognition, 107(1), 179-217.
De Brigard, F., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (Eds.). (2022). Neuroscience and Philosophy. MIT Press.
Kourtis, D., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2013). Predictive representation of other people's actions in joint action planning: An EEG study. Social Neuroscience, 8(1), 31-42.
Loehr, J. D., Kourtis, D., Vesper, C., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2013). Monitoring individual and joint action outcomes in duet music performance. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 25(7), 1049-1061
Meyer, M., Hunnius, S., Elk, M. v., Ede, F. v., & Bekkering, H. (2011). Joint action modulates motor system involvement during action observation in 3-year-olds. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3-4), 581-592.
Meyer, M., van der Wel, R. P. R. D., & Hunnius, S. (2013). Higher-order action planning for individual and joint object manipulations. Experimental Brain Research, 225(4), 579-588.
Novembre, G., Ticini, L. F., Schutz-Bosbach, S., & Keller, P. E. (2014). Motor simulation and the coordination of self and other in real-time joint action. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(8), 1062-1068.
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and mind moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70-76.
Attending students will be provided with handouts, materials and papers during the course. All teaching materials will be made available on TEAMS for non-attending students.
Reading and assignments for 6 ECTS
Students may choose two of three topics included in 9ECTS program.
Bratman, M. E. (1993). Shared intention. Ethics, 104, 97-113.
Bratman, M. E. (2014). Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together. Oxford: Oxford University Press, chapters 1-3.
Butterfill, S. A., & Sinigaglia, C. (2014). Intention and motor representation in purposive action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88(1), 119-145
Davidson 1963 'Actions, Reasons, and Causes' Journal of Philosophy 60: 685-700
Gilbert, M. P. (1990). Walking together: A paradigmatic social phenomenon. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 15, 1-14.
Gilbert, M. P. (2013). Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, chapters 1, 3-4.
Gold, N. & Sugden, R. (2007). Collective intentions and team agency. Journal of Philosophy, 104(3), 109-137.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55-130). Academic Press
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44, 389-400. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105-2108. doi:10.1126/science.1062872
Ludwig, K. (2016). From Individual to Plural Agency: Collective Action. Oxford University Press, chapters 12, 13, 15.
Pacherie, E. (2013), Intentional joint agency: Shared intention lite. Synthese 190 (10):1817-1839.
Pacherie, E. (2008). The phenomenology of action: A conceptual framework. Cognition, 107(1), 179-217.
De Brigard, F., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (Eds.). (2022). Neuroscience and Philosophy. MIT Press.
Kourtis, D., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2013). Predictive representation of other people's actions in joint action planning: An EEG study. Social Neuroscience, 8(1), 31-42.
Loehr, J. D., Kourtis, D., Vesper, C., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2013). Monitoring individual and joint action outcomes in duet music performance. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 25(7), 1049-1061
Meyer, M., Hunnius, S., Elk, M. v., Ede, F. v., & Bekkering, H. (2011). Joint action modulates motor system involvement during action observation in 3-year-olds. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3-4), 581-592.
Meyer, M., van der Wel, R. P. R. D., & Hunnius, S. (2013). Higher-order action planning for individual and joint object manipulations. Experimental Brain Research, 225(4), 579-588.
Novembre, G., Ticini, L. F., Schutz-Bosbach, S., & Keller, P. E. (2014). Motor simulation and the coordination of self and other in real-time joint action. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(8), 1062-1068.
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and mind moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70-76.
Assessment methods and Criteria
Students who attend at least 70% of the lectures will be assessed on the basis of two short papers (3000 words). Non-attending students have to write one short paper (3000 words) and take an oral examination. Evaluation criteria:
(A) the knowledge of the main topics of the course;
(B) the capability to integrate conceptual analysis and experimental methodologies as well as to master the relevant literature;
(C) independent judgment with respect to philosophical and scientific issues
(D) the ability to provide sounded arguments in written and oral communications.
(A) the knowledge of the main topics of the course;
(B) the capability to integrate conceptual analysis and experimental methodologies as well as to master the relevant literature;
(C) independent judgment with respect to philosophical and scientific issues
(D) the ability to provide sounded arguments in written and oral communications.
M-FIL/02 - LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE - University credits: 9
Lessons: 60 hours
Professor:
Michael John Andrew