Abstract
This paper highlights various secondary sources’ operational definitions of cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and neurophysiology. The research explains different psychological theories and supports them with content from secondary sources. The writing is concerned with information process and social-cultural theory, which relates to creating a social hierarchy by relating it to network science. On the other hand, neuroscience incorporates the first-principle theory, enabling one to create models to understand the concepts in the physical system. Additionally, neuroscience employs the resting-state functionality theory, which uses neurobehavioral data to study people’s changes in behavior by studying the mind. Lastly, the paper expounds on the reductive and non-reductive theories of neurophilosophy and how different neurophilosophers countered each other.
Introduction
Studies in psychology have progressed over the years, which have led to technological advancements that improve people’s lives. Cognitive psychology studies internal brain processes, such as how people think, react, solve problems and learn. Neuroscience involves the study of the brain and neural structures and how one’s behavior causes changes in brain activity. Neuroscience uses tools, for instance, radiation imaging devices, to check brain activity and changes in the different parts of the brain. Nonetheless, neurophilosophy is a branch of psychology that people barely study as it connects neuroscience and philosophy. It relates to the traditional views like free will to understanding one’s brain. This research investigates the different theories, comparative studies and methodologies used to provide a deep understanding of cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and neurophilosophy.
Literature Review
Reference 1
Cognitive psychology is helpful in various activities, including language acquisition and learning, particularly in the field of education. In the information process theory, finding effective techniques to boost students’ memory and comprehension of course information is one of the most challenging tasks in education. The study “Building a testing-based training paradigm from cognitive psychology principles” blends established cognitive psychology learning principles with existing classroom instructional approaches (Corral et al., 2019). These principles guide trainers to employ cognitive psychology to provide a training model that teachers may deploy to augment the taught concepts.
Moreover, the employments of cognitive psychology principles help learners easily grasp the content, which concedes with the information processing theory. In an introductory Psychology course at the University of Colorado Boulder, 183 undergraduate students participated in the study (Corral et al., 2019). The retrieval practice, correct-answer feedback, self-paced study, and cognitive antidote learning concepts are incorporated into the study paradigm (Corral et al., 2019). Correct-answer feedback shows participants the accurate result when they answer, and self-paced study enables students to manage their study time. Nevertheless, the cognitive antidote is using various practices such as physical tasks to avoid boredom in class or make the students not disinterested. As the term “retrieval” suggests, retrieval practice is drawing back to references. This principle is commonly employed in evidence-based learning practices where students learn from other people’s experiences and studies and relate to them. These cognitive psychology principles help explain and understand a concept in training.
Reference 2
Another study highlights the social-cultural theory, which explains how cognitive psychology can be incorporated into network science which relates to the social-cultural theory of cognitive psychology. The current book, “Network Science in Cognitive Psychology” by Michael Vitevitch, illustrates how the subject of network science has led to discoveries and insights on cultural perception and societal organization. The methodology used in Vitevitch’s study consists of creating various models and asking people who are not familiar with the network model if they can relate it to societal hierarchies. The impact of social psychology on cognitive psychology may be demonstrated in how people of diverse cultures have different visual perceptions. The study has also produced new and fascinating issues linked to themes that usually emphasize cognitive psychology, such as understanding a structure, the mental picture one has, and how one uses it to relate to other people.
Cognitive psychology helps understand a social structure through the mental manipulation of network science. Network science provides both a theoretical framework for understanding the world and a process for utilizing that framework to gather data, test hypotheses, and make conclusions (Vitevitch, 2020). From the research, a node in one’s network system of social contacts would represent each individual in the system. A connection would be made between nodes to signify mutual friendliness between the two people (Vitevitch, 2020). Cognitive psychology research problems may essentially be simplified to what mental symbols one has that depict one surrounding and how one manipulate these symbols to create their mental reality. Michael illustrates the cognitive psychology of building a social network by relating it to technological network science.
Reference 3
Neuroscience incorporates network science relating to how people understand the nervous system by creating a mental picture. The interconnection of the nerve cells in the nervous system is called the “Network Model,” as illustrated in the article “On the nature and use of models in network neuroscience” by Bassett and Gold. The article employs the first-principle theory, which illustrates that the mind can imagine and create a visual impression of something in the real world. As for the methodology, the article provides models that people would use to understand the network of neuroscience. Neuroscience employs technologies established in physics and other fields, yet it is closely linked to the science of the brain. The most basic and widely used neural network model shows interconnections between neuronal units known as nodes. Network models can be built using parts of the nerve tissue or non-human tissue, which helps understand the body’s neural map.
The writers show that the neural network models help understand the reality of the neural network in the brain. Theorizing models mentally, such as the first-principle theory, entails casting images as imagined in the mind, which helps create a narrative of a physical system (Bassett & Gold, 2018). When asked to draw the neural connections in the brain, most people will draw interconnecting lines with no specific shape. However, when there is a model, it will make people understand the neural patterns in the brain. Furthermore, because multiple models reflect distinct aspects of a system, they may be employed in tandem to build complementing narrative frameworks. Whether considered together or individually, models illustrate the anatomy and structure of a thing precisely via the exercise and further prodding of scientific imagination. With models, psychology meets the actual thing that people imagine and helps understand the interconnection of brain cells.
Reference 4
Given the wide diversity of experimental procedures and results explored, the junction of fundamental neuroscience and psychology has improved over the years. The article “Developmental cognitive neuroscience in the era of networks and big data: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats” by Fair et al. studies neurobehavioral data to establish the positive impacts of technological advancements in neuroscience (2021). It employs theories such as the resting-state functionality theory by viewing neuroimaging data of people at their resting stage and the subsequent frequency curve to detect changes in behavior. The introduction of imaging devices such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) aided in integrating previously different domains of psychology and neuroscience. The advancement of technology has enabled scientists to relate cognitive psychology and neuroscience.
Furthermore, neuroimaging has helped study the brain, early detection of people with mental disorders, data collection, and use the data in technological devices and programs, such as tracking body metrics in health apps. The imaging also reveals any brain diseases that may corroborate the appearance of a specific behavior in a person, strengthening the brain-behavior association. For instance, in children’s resting state functionality curve, the curve in children with distress had many peaks, noting a change in behavior (Fair et al., 2021). Extending developmental cognitive neuroscience outside academia opens up new avenues for long-term assistance, as seen by collaborations with corporations such as Google and Apple to build technologies to enhance research, health, and well-being (Fair et al., 2021). Neuroscience has enabled the study of people’s behavior through technological tools that facilitate the detection of mental disorders, tracking disorders, and integration with other companies to promote mental wellness.
Reference 5
Neurophilosophy is a scientific field that combines neuroscience and philosophy to investigate previously simple philosophical themes like free will. Patricia Churchland introduced the term “neurophilosophy” in 1986, which is highlighted in a 2022 edited version of her book, “What is neurophilosophy, and how did neurophilosophy get started?” Among her methods of explaining neurophilosophy is the naturalization of philosophy, a classical distinction between neuroscience and philosophy required to understand how the separation of both fields is dispersible in theory through the internationalization of philosophy. Some of the main areas of philosophy are metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and phenomenology. Philosophical ideas, issues, and approaches are explained using linguistic terms. Therefore, neurophilosophy connects linguistic terms and experimental science to create theories on how the brain works.
There are three theories developed by different scientists on neurophilosophy: reductive, parallelism, and non-reductive neurophilosophy. Patricia Churchland developed the challenged reductive neurophilosophy, which notes that philosophy is inevitably reduced to neuroscience’s observational-experimental research methods and empirical evidence (Churchland, 2022). She adds that philosophy, like evolutionary psychology, will become employed as neuroscience in its scientific research. There is also the belief that parallelism, as another theory of neurophilosophy, exists between the observational domain of neuroscience and philosophy, in addition to the various forms of neurophilosophy. Non-reductive neurophilosophy focuses on the physical aspects of the brain, such as consciousness, and not the theoretical aspect. Self-awareness, free will, and mental or psychological characteristics such as attention, memory, knowledge, or sense of agency are specific neural functions that can be reduced to the brain’s neuronal activity from a neurophilosophists’ point of view.
Reference 6
There are emerging concerns about the interpretation of neurophilosophy by various scientists, which are well served by the tools of philosophy where philosophy and the sciences of the mind cross the most. In Klar’s article, “What is neurophilosophy: Do we need a non-reductive form,” he expounds on other theories that neurophilosophers other than Patricia Churchland created, such as the non-reductive theory by Arthur Schopenhauer (Klar, 2019). Klar’s methodology in the article is a comparative review of different theories of neurophilosophy from different neurophilosophers. He contrasts Churchland’s views with other scientists on neurophilosophy. Patricia offers an outstanding exposition of the justification for theoretical identities while developing her viewpoint on the theory of reductive neurophilosophy. In addition, Arthur Schopenhauer developed brain-centered research that would counter Patricia’s reductive neurophilosophy theory and introduce non-reductive neurophilosophy (Klar, 20210). However, these viewpoints are valid and help understand the different perspectives of the neurophilosophers and how philosophy and neuroscience are connected.
In the article, Klar shows how Arthur’s thoughts emphasize body-brain connectivity and prove that the brain is the body’s powerhouse. This brain-body connectivity proves that the neurological activity in the brain causes some behavior in human beings. Therefore, Arthur counters Churchland’s thought on mind-body connectivity, emphasizing that the mind has its free will and does not influence the body’s activities (Klar, 2019). Philosophy is sometimes characterized as the study of topics whose answers are open to interpretation; thus, there were conflicting views on neurophilosophy amongst different neurophilosophers.
Conclusion
A critical study of cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and neurophilosophy is essential through jogging the minds of other great researchers like Patricia Churchland. Corral and other researchers conduct a study to construct principles of cognitive psychology that are essential in teaching and learning. Additionally, a book by Vitevitch gives a deep understanding of how people imagine the social structure using a mental picture of the network models in technology. Bassett and Gold use the same model in illustrating the physiological structure of the nervous system in the brain by creating models. This imaginative perception of tangible things makes it easy for people to understand and remember their structure. In neuroscience, Fair et al. illustrate how changes in technology have advanced the neuroscience field enabling scientists to study brains and cognitive psychology and solve issues such as the early detection of mental disorders. Patricia Churchland, one of the doyennes of neurophilosophy, highlights the reductive neurophilosophy. Klar critiques Patricia’s concepts on neurophilosophy using other philosophers’ perceptions. Philosophy is a vast subject that is open to subjection and personalized thoughts.
References
Bassett, D. S., Zurn, P., & Gold, J. I. (2018). On the nature and use of models in network neuroscience. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 19(9), 566–578.
Churchland, P. S. (2022). What is neurophilosophy, and how did neurophilosophy get started? Journal of NeuroPhilosophy, 1(1).
Corral, D., Healy, A. F., Rozbruch, E. V., & Jones, M. (2019). Building a testing-based training paradigm from cognitive psychology principles. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 5(3), 189–208.
Fair, D. A., Dosenbach, N. U., Moore, A. H., Satterthwaite, T. D., & Milham, M. P. (2021). Developmental cognitive neuroscience in the era of networks and big data: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 3, 249-275.
Klar, P. (2021). What is neurophilosophy: Do we need a non-reductive form? Synthese, 199(1), 2701-2725.
Vitevitch, M. S. (Ed.). (2020). Network science in cognitive psychology. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.