Coherence, causation, and the future of cognitive neuroscience research.

Nachev and Hacker's conceptual analysis of the neural antecedents of voluntary action underscores the real danger of ignoring the meta-theoretical apparatus of cognitive neuroscience research. In this response, we temper certain claims (e.g., whether or not certain research questions are incoherent), consider a more extreme consequence of their argument against cognitive neuroscience (i.e., whether or not one can speak about causation with neural antecedents at all), and, finally, highlight recent methodological developments that exemplify cognitive neuroscientists' focus on studying the brain as a parallel, dynamic, and highly complex biological system.