[Neuroscience] Neurophenomenology

  • Thread starter Thread starter microsansfil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    neuroscience
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the scientific status of neurophenomenology, a research program initiated by Francisco Varela. Participants explore whether this approach can be classified as scientific, considering its integration of subjective experiences and objective data, and the implications for understanding consciousness.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Patrick questions whether neurophenomenology is considered a scientific approach and asks for arguments against its scientific status.
  • One participant emphasizes that discussions must be based on published papers from accepted journals, cautioning against philosophical interpretations.
  • Another participant references a definition of neurophenomenological methods, highlighting their integration of objective and subjective data, and queries whether the use of first-person reports in psychology qualifies as scientific.
  • A different participant introduces a study on olfactory genetics that incorporates phenomenological aspects, suggesting a connection to the discussion on neurophenomenology.
  • Patrick reiterates the debate over the scientific nature of neurophenomenology, noting the lack of consensus on the scientific classification of approaches to consciousness and the concept of what constitutes "scientific."

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether neurophenomenology can be classified as a scientific approach. There is no consensus on the criteria for scientific classification or the applicability of neurophenomenology to the study of consciousness.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the ambiguity surrounding the definition of "scientific" and the challenges in addressing the hard problem of consciousness within scientific frameworks. The discussion reflects ongoing debates about the integration of subjective experiences in scientific methodologies.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
3K