[Neuroscience] Neurophenomenology

  • Thread starter Thread starter microsansfil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    neuroscience
AI Thread Summary
Neurophenomenology, initiated by Francisco Varela, is under scrutiny regarding its classification as a scientific approach. The discussion highlights that while neurophenomenological methods integrate both objective and subjective data, retaining statistical power from cognitive science, the reliance on first-person reports raises questions about its scientific validity. Critics argue that the lack of consensus on what constitutes a scientific method complicates the evaluation of neurophenomenology. The debate also touches on the broader issue of whether the hard problem of consciousness can be scientifically addressed, with some asserting that a key criterion for scientific theories is their falsifiability. The conversation suggests that without clear definitions and criteria, the classification of neurophenomenology as a scientific approach remains contentious.
microsansfil
Messages
325
Reaction score
43
Hi all,

Neurophenomenology a scientific research program initiated by Francisco Varela Is it considered a scientific approach ?

On NCBI which is a National Center for Biotechnology Information advances science and health by providing access to biomedical and genomic information.



If it is not, what argument disprove that it is a scientific approach ?

Patrick
 
Last edited:
Biology news on Phys.org
To be discussed here the paper has to be published in a journal accepted by us. It cannot be mostly philosophy. Varela does both, so you need to be careful.
 
From your link:

"Neurophenomenological (NP) methods integrate objective and subjective data in ways that retain the statistical power of established disciplines (like cognitive science) while embracing the value of first-person reports of experience."

Using first-person reports is common in psychology, do you consider that to be a "scientific approach"?
 
This might be of interest to you. It's based on genetics rather than neuroscience, but includes a phenomenological component.

Does a unique olfactory genome imply a unique olfactory world?

The team then explored the effect of naturally occurring functional variations in olfactory receptor genes on odorant perception in an ethnically diverse human population. They discovered that different haplotypes of a given receptor subtype conferred different perceived valence and intensity for a given odorant. Specifically, haplotypic variation in the olfactory receptor subtype OR10G4 allowed them to predict ~15% of the variance in perceived intensity and ~10% of the perceived pleasantness for the odorant guaiacol, which is typically described as 'smoky'. Thus, by providing evidence for variability across individuals at the level of peripheral olfactory processing and by linking the in vitro functional differences with differences in human olfactory perception, this study supports the notion of a 'private nose' for each person10, 11, reflecting that person's specific genetic makeup.

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v17/n1/full/nn.3608.html

nn.3608-F1.jpg


[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12730696
[11] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17873857
 
Last edited by a moderator:
microsansfil said:
Hi all,

Neurophenomenology a scientific research program initiated by Francisco Varela Is it considered a scientific approach ?

On NCBI which is a National Center for Biotechnology Information advances science and health by providing access to biomedical and genomic information.
If it is not, what argument disprove that it is a scientific approach ?

Patrick
I think its debatable whether this approach is scientific. There is no general consensus on whether the hard problem of consciousness can be addressed scientifically, or on which approaches to solving the problem are scientific.

Even worse, there is no general consensus on what "scientific" even means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem). Nevertheless, a good starting point to judge whether a theory is scientific is to ask whether it is falsifiable. Based on the wikipedia page, I can't figure out enough about this neurophenomenology approach to answer that.
 
Deadly cattle screwworm parasite found in US patient. What to know. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2025/08/25/new-world-screwworm-human-case/85813010007/ Exclusive: U.S. confirms nation's first travel-associated human screwworm case connected to Central American outbreak https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-confirms-nations-first-travel-associated-human-screwworm-case-connected-2025-08-25/...
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
11
Views
6K
Back
Top