Dijkstra Nadine, de Bruin Leon
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior, Radboud University Nijmegen , Nijmegen , Netherlands.
Department of Philosophy, VU University Amsterdam , Amsterdam , Netherlands.
Front Psychiatry. 2016 Jul 19;7:129. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00129. eCollection 2016.
In this paper, we investigate to what extent it is justified to draw conclusions about causal relations between brain states and mental states from cognitive neuroscience studies. We first explain the views of two prominent proponents of the interventionist account of causation: Woodward and Baumgartner. We then discuss the implications of their views in the context of traditional cognitive neuroscience studies in which the effect of changes in mental state on changes in brain states is investigated. After this, we turn to brain stimulation studies in which brain states are manipulated to investigate the effects on mental states. We argue that, depending on whether one sides with Woodward or Baumgartner, it is possible to draw causal conclusions from both types of studies (Woodward) or from brain stimulation studies only (Baumgartner). We show what happens to these conclusions if we adopt different views of the relation between mental states and brain states. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings for psychiatry and the treatment of psychiatric disorders.
在本文中，我们探讨从认知神经科学研究中得出关于脑状态与心理状态之间因果关系的结论在多大程度上是合理的。我们首先解释因果关系干预主义解释的两位杰出支持者伍德沃德和鲍姆加特纳的观点。然后，我们在传统认知神经科学研究的背景下讨论他们观点的含义，在这些研究中，心理状态变化对脑状态变化的影响被加以研究。在此之后，我们转向脑刺激研究，在这类研究中，脑状态被操控以研究对心理状态的影响。我们认为，根据支持伍德沃德还是鲍姆加特纳的观点，有可能从这两类研究中（伍德沃德的观点）或仅从脑刺激研究中（鲍姆加特纳的观点）得出因果结论。我们展示了如果我们对心理状态与脑状态之间的关系采用不同观点，这些结论会发生什么变化。最后，我们讨论我们的研究结果对精神病学及精神疾病治疗的意义。
