Philosophy For Our Times

Episode: Mazes of the Mind: The Philosophy of Neuroscience

Panel: Iain McGilchrist (psychiatrist, author), Colin Blakemore (neuroscientist), Bryan Appleyard (journalist, author)
Host: Hilary Lawson
Date: November 12, 2025

Overview

This episode explores the promises, pitfalls, and philosophical challenges of neuroscience as it seeks to explain human behavior, consciousness, art, and free will. The panelists debate whether neuroscience can truly solve the mysteries of the mind, or if its recent cultural prominence is more hype than substance. The discussion balances scientific developments with enduring philosophical questions about the relationship between mind and brain.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Rise—and Hype—of Neuroscience

[04:14–09:33] Bryan Appleyard

• Appleyard recounts his fMRI experience, highlighting the linguistic and conceptual split between "me" and "my brain" ("...the 'you' has somehow vanished from the scanner and has gone somewhere else." – Bryan Appleyard, [04:38]).
• He notes the explosion of "neuro-everything" in popular culture, from neuromarketing to neuroeconomics—often outpacing genuine scientific understanding.
• Both popular and political spheres are eagerly adopting neuroscientific findings, sometimes prematurely.

Memorable Quote:

“Neuroscience has now become the big science of the moment... The big science of any moment always claims everything.” – Bryan Appleyard, [08:08]

2. Neuroscience: Limits and Contributions

[09:35–12:49] Iain McGilchrist

• Neuroscience offers valuable maps of human experience but can never fully explain what mind is (“It’s just a level of description. It’s not the basic level of description.” – Iain McGilchrist, [09:43]).
• The hope that neuroscience will answer fundamental questions about art, consciousness, or subjectivity is misplaced.
• Scientists must avoid category mistakes and remain humble about the limits of their framework.

Memorable Quote:

"The problem is when scientists, who often don’t have very good grounding in philosophy, make philosophical conclusions about it, we simply don’t follow from the data." – Iain McGilchrist, [11:51]

3. Neuroscience as 16th-Century Astronomy

[12:49–16:55] Colin Blakemore

• Blakemore compares the current state of neuroscience to astronomy before telescopes: observable phenomena abound, and tools are improving, but a full explanatory framework is lacking.
• The scale and complexity of the human brain—1011 neurons, 1015 connections—makes the scientific challenge immense.

Memorable Quote:

“Neuroscience is very much in the state of 16th century astronomy... But I would say, in judging where we are, always ask: what is the explanatory alternative?” – Colin Blakemore, [13:37]

4. Materialism, Models, and the Nature of Mind

[18:10–25:56] Debate among Panellists

• Blakemore insists, “Every aspect of human behavior, experience, action... is a product of the brain. There is nothing else.” ([18:10])
• Appleyard and McGilchrist resist this strict materialism, suggesting science’s ability to model the mind is fundamentally limited.
• The challenge: can a complete physical description ever capture subjective mind, or are we merely describing elaborate correlations?
• Appleyard raises the problem of reductionism and history's shifting scientific paradigms, cautioning against declaring “there is no alternative.”

Memorable Exchange:

Blakemore: “There is nothing else.” ([18:12])
Appleyard: “I have no problem with the idea that you would come up with some neuroscientific account... [but] when you keep saying 'no alternative', you weaken your case.” – [18:32]

5. Limits of Scanning and Scientific Prediction

[22:17–29:52]

• The panel critiques the reliance on brain scans (fMRI) as explanatory; scans are limited in resolution and largely correlational.
• Even with hypothetically perfect scans, the relationship between physical signals and mental states remains fraught.
• McGilchrist discusses how neuroscience often operates with outdated mechanistic concepts of matter, whereas physics now sees things as relational and probabilistic.
• The possibility of 'accounting backwards' (explaining why a brain is how it is), is contrasted with the impossibility of predicting forwards (due to quantum indeterminacy).

Memorable Quote:

“Biology still espouses a mechanical vision of the world that the rest of science long ago moved on from.” – Iain McGilchrist, [27:50]

6. Mind as Model, or More?

[32:23–36:46]

• Blakemore suggests our folk concepts of 'mind', 'will', etc., are evolutionary models that help us interact but are not final truths.
• Even a complete account of the brain need not make mind and brain “the same”; the terms may remain as linguistic conventions.

Memorable Exchange:

McGilchrist: “It’s easy to ask questions that can’t be answered. Tell me what time is.” ([33:00])
Blakemore: “We’ll always use the word mind, but... we’ll have a growing account of what's actually happening in our brains...” ([35:20])

7. Free Will: What Does Neuroscience Say?

[39:21–47:05]

• Blakemore references Libet-style experiments: brain activity indicating decisions happens before conscious awareness. Does this refute free will?
• He posits: “Mental states must follow brain states.”
• Appleyard responds philosophically: If we truly accepted we had no free will, we couldn’t meaningfully act or communicate; the concept is deeply embedded in language and social life (“If you seriously embrace [no free will], you have to be locked up.” – [44:16]).
• McGilchrist notes: the illusion of the self and agency is itself a product of unconscious processes, but that doesn’t mean agency is meaningless.

Notable Quotes:

“It is inevitable... mental states must follow brain states.” – Colin Blakemore, [42:27]
“If you actually take the view that we have no free will, you have to be locked up.” – Bryan Appleyard, [44:18]
“A lot of my most sophisticated thinking goes on unconsciously... and I shouldn’t have thought it was exactly revolutionary information.” – Iain McGilchrist, [45:05]

Notable Quotes (with Timestamps)

• Bryan Appleyard [08:08]: “Neuroscience has now become the big science of the moment... The big science of any moment always claims everything.”
• Iain McGilchrist [09:43]: “It’s just a level of description. It’s not the basic level of description.”
• Colin Blakemore [13:37]: “Neuroscience is very much in the state of 16th century astronomy... always ask: what is the explanatory alternative?”
• Colin Blakemore [18:12]: “Every aspect of human behavior... is a product of the brain. There is nothing else.”
• Iain McGilchrist [27:50]: “Biology still espouses a mechanical vision of the world that the rest of science long ago moved on from.”
• Colin Blakemore [42:27]: “Mental states must follow brain states.”
• Bryan Appleyard [44:18]: “If you actually take the view that we have no free will, you have to be locked up.”

Key Segment Timestamps

| Topic | Segment Start | Segment End | |------------------------------|--------------|-------------| | Introductions | 00:03 | 04:14 | | Brain Scan Anecdote (Appleyard) | 04:14 | 09:33 | | McGilchrist on Mind-Brain Limits | 09:35 | 12:49 | | Blakemore’s Astronomy Analogy | 12:49 | 16:55 | | Science and Materialism Debate | 18:08 | 25:56 | | Limits of Scanning | 22:17 | 25:56 | | Predictability/Reductionism | 29:52 | 32:23 | | Theoretical Vocabulary (Mind) | 32:23 | 36:46 | | Free Will Discussion | 39:21 | 47:05 |

Tone and Language

• The discussion is lively, occasionally playful but consistently thoughtful.
• The panelists use clear, accessible language but probe complex philosophical territory.
• The conversation often returns to the need for humility in both science and philosophy.

Conclusion

This episode presents a nuanced interplay between neuroscience’s promise as a science of mind and the deep philosophical resistance to reducing consciousness and agency to mere brain events. The lively exchange between McGilchrist's philosophical skepticism, Blakemore's confident materialism, and Appleyard's journalistic caution showcases the ongoing tension—and productivity—at the intersection of neuroscience and philosophy.

Listeners are encouraged to recognize both the genuine advances of neuroscience and the importance of philosophical humility in grappling with the mysteries of the mind.

End of summary.