“This remarkable book, the product of a collaboration between a philosopher and neuroscientist, shows that the claims made on behalf of cognitive science are ill-founded. The book will certainly arouse opposition... but if it causes controversy, it is controversy that is long overdue.” Sir Anthony Kenny, President of the British Academy, 1989–93
“This book was simply waiting to be written.” Denis Noble, Oxford University
“Contemporary scientists and philosophers may not like Bennett and Hacker's conclusions, but they will hardly be able to ignore them. The work is a formidable achievement.” John Cottingham, Professor of Philosophy, Reading University
“Neuroscientists, psychologists and philosophers will be challenged – and educated – by this sustained and well-informed critique.” Paul Harris, Professor, Human Development and Psychology, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University
"This book is a joy to read. It is the fruit of collaboration across disciplines and continents between a neurophysiologist and a philosopher. They have written a polemical work that is a model of clarity and directness. Distiniguished neurophysiologist M.R. Bennett of the University of Sydney, and eminent Oxford philosopher P.M.S. Hacker have produced that rarity of scholarship, a genuinely interdisciplinary work that succeeds. ... This is a wonderful book that will illuminate, provoke and delight professional scientists, philosophers and general readers alike." Australian Book Review
"Bennett and Hacker have identified [conceptual confusions] with clinical precision and relentless good sense.... rich with philosophical insights ... thoughtful and wonderfully useful treatise ..." Philosophy
"careful application in a host of cases ...is precisely what Bennett and Hacker provide in devastating critiques of psychologists and neuroscientists such as Blakemore, Crick, Damasio, Edelman, Gazzaniga, Kandel, Kosslyn, LeDoux, Penrose and Weiskrantz; and they also raise equally disturbing questions for philosophers such as Dennett, the Churchlands, Chalmers, Nagel and Searle. Whether this book leads to a reconfiguring of contemporary neuroscience and the philosophy associated with it will tell us much about the dynamics of contemporary intellectual life." Philosophy
"The vast spectrum of material in philosophy and neuroscience that Bennett and Hacker consider is impressive and their discussion is thorough and illuminating." Human Nature Review
1. ‘[It] will certainly, for a long time to come, be the most important contribution to the mind-body problem which there is.’ G. H. von Wright
2. ‘everyone who thinks about the mind and consciousness should study Philosophical Foundations of Neurtoscience. ... it will ultimately contribute to a far better understanding of mind and consciousness within scientific thought as well as a better understanding of the limits of empirical investigation’, Arthur Collins, The Philosophical Quarterly, 2004
3. ‘Sweeping, argumentative and brilliant, this book will provoke widespread discussion among philosophers and neuroscientists alike’, Dennis Patterson, Notre Dame Philosophical Review, 2003
4. ‘...devastating critiques of psychologists and neuroscientists ... Whether this book leads to a reconfiguring of contemporary neuroscience and the philosophy associated with it will tell us much about the dynamics of contemporary intellectual life’, Anthony O’Hear, Philosophy 2003
5. ‘This book is a joy to read. ... a model of clarity and directedness... [Bennett and Hacker] have produced that rarity of scholarship, a genuinely interdisciplinary work that succeeds. ... This is a wonderful book that will illuminate, provoke and delight professional scientists, philosophers and general readers alike.’, Damian Grace, Australian Book Review, 2003
6. ‘clinical precision and ... relentless good sense ... [a] thoughtful and wonderfully useful treatise’, Daniel N. Robinson, Philosophical Quarterly, 2004
7. ‘mandatory reading for anybody interested in neuroscience and consciousness research. The vast spectrum of material in philosophy and neuroscience that Bennett and Hacker consider is impressive and their discussion is thorough and illuminating.’ Axel Kohler, Human Nature Review, 2003
8. ‘a delicious cake of a book in which Bennett and Hacker guide the reader through a conceptual minefield of confusions repeatedly made by neuroscientists and philosophers alike.’ Constantine Sandis, Metapsychology 2003
9. ‘Anyone who has ever framed a theory or explained one should read this book ‑ at the risk of forever falling silent.’, The Rector, University of Sydney, Obiter Dicta 2003
10. ‘... impressively lucid ... Bennett and Hacker unquestionably succeed in making us challenge our own concepts, examine them for dross, and strive to home in on fundamentals.’ Neil Spurway, Journal of the European Soc for Study of Science and Theology.
11. ‘...the fruit of a unique cooperation between a neuroscientist and a philosopher ... an excellent book that should be read by all philosophers of cognition and all researchers in the cognitive neurosciences.’ Herman Philipse, ABG #2, De Academische Boekengids 2003
12. `...there are, I think, grounds for hope that this book will do an enormous amount of good, both in correcting philosophical confusion within neuroscience and in promoting a new style of dialogue between neuroscience and philosophy' David Cockburn, Philosophical Investigations, 2005
Im Wesentlichen dokumentiert das Buch die Möglichkeit Wittgensteins Spätphilosophie kritisch auf die konzeptionellen Prämissen der Neurowissenschaften anzuwenden. Ein Fokus liegt dabei auf der Mereologie. Die Mereologie ist eine noch relativ junge philosophische Disziplin an der Grenze zwischen Logik und Philosophie. Sie untersucht in systematischer Weise auf der Grundlage geeigneter logischer Systeme die Beziehungen zwischen Teil (griech. meros) und Ganzem. Von besonderem philosophischem Interesse ist die Frage, inwieweit sich mereologische Strukturen zur Klärung und Lösung verschiedenster Probleme vor allem der Ontologie und Erkenntnistheorie einsetzen lassen. Hackers Dartellung ist dabei ein besonders gelungener Versuch, diese Frage zu beantworten. Einigen (!) Neurowissenschaftlern unterläuft nämlich der sprachlogische Fehler Attribute auf das Gehirn anzuwenden, die nur dem Menschen als Ganzem zugeschrieben werden können. Es ist demnach also nicht möglich eine neue Grammatik einzuführen, die es erlauben würde zu postulieren, das es das menschliche Gehirn ist, welches "denkt", "konzeptioniert" oder "konstruiert". Solche Fähigkeiten können nur dem Menschen als Ganzem zugeschrieben werden. Dieser Grundgedanke zieht sich durch das ganze Buch. Sicherlich ist der Umfang des Buches nicht an allen Stellen gerechtfertigt. Die Ursache hierfür ist aber weniger bei Hacker zu suchen, als vielmehr an der Vielzahl der Neurowissenschaftler mit denen der Autor sich beschäftigt. Insgesamt ein gelungenes Werk, das zur Pflichtlektüre eines jeden gehören sollte, der sich mit der Philosophie des Geistes aus einer sprachkritischen Perspektive beschäftigen möchte. (Amazon.de, Juli 2010) 
