4e8riufc4m9rvif

The primary goal, if there is any, is merely: a more complete understanding of the subject matter.

Phil. of mind and neuroscience has different subject of study, in most cases, beyond the basics, they can just ignore each other. I think you might have a very bad misunderstanding of what philosophy is.

I have a beginner level interest in philosophy of mind. I can attempt to add some information on how "...and today we're seeing philosophy of mind turn to neuroscience." is very wrong.

Neuroscience studies various structures and mechanisms of nervous system and brain. Even when they seemingly discuss 'consciousness', they tend to simply mean 'awareness'. I think most are generally familiar with other aspects of neuroscience.

In phil. of mind there are categories of consciousness or lack thereof, though Phenomenal Consciousness is more popular area of study (experiential side of consciousness). One of the key subject in Philosophy of mind try to show whether mind can possibly be physical (ex readable article: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf), can mind be described computationally? (ex paper: http://consc.net/papers/rock.html) Phi. of mind also studies accesses of consciousness, study methods on how to go about studying contents of consciousness etc.

I've talked to neuroscientist who despise philosophers talking about conciseness and claim their ideas are silly or can be ignored. There has also been cases where big name neuroscientist proposed silly ideas about mind that philosophers wouldn't begin to consider.

In short they study different things.