Abstract:Purpose: The general objective of the study was to examine how changes or advancements in modern neuroscience may impact or influence traditional philosophical theories. Methodology: The study adopted a desktop research methodology. Desk research refers to secondary data or that which can be collected without fieldwork. Desk research is basically involved in collecting data from existing resources hence it is often considered a low cost technique as compared to field research, as the main cost is involved in executive’s time, telephone charges and directories. Thus, the study relied on already published studies, reports and statistics. This secondary data was easily accessed through the online journals and library. Findings: The findings reveal that there exists a contextual and methodological gap relating to modern neuroscience with traditional philosophical theories. Preliminary empirical review revealed that interdisciplinary collaboration between these fields holds significant potential. Through a comprehensive review of existing literature, it was found that while challenges existed, there were also considerable opportunities for integration. The study emphasized the importance of theoretical integration and methodological innovation in advancing understanding at the intersection of neuroscience and philosophy. Practical implications were highlighted for stakeholders, including researchers, educators, policymakers, and the public, with the conclusion suggesting that embracing interdisciplinary perspectives could lead to deeper insights into the nature of the human mind and its philosophical implications. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: The Dual-Aspect Monism, Embodied Cognition and Enactivism theory may be used to anchor future studies on modern neuroscience with traditional philosophical theories. The study provided recommendations aimed at advancing theory, practice, and policy. Interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration between neuroscientists and philosophers were fostered to enrich theoretical discussions. Insights from the integration of neuroscience and philosophy were incorporated into educational curricula and training programs, promoting critical thinking skills. Ethical considerations were integrated into neuroscience research through the development of guidelines and regulations. Interdisciplinary research teams were formed to design innovative methodologies, bridging terminological and conceptual differences. Furthermore, international collaboration was encouraged to leverage diverse perspectives and resources. Keywords: Integrating, Modern Neuroscience, Traditional Philosophical Theories, Interdisciplinary, Dialogue, Collaboration, Ethical Considerations, Education, Terminological Differences, International Collaboration, Critical Thinking

Neuroethics Questions to Guide Ethical Research in the International Brain Initiatives

International Brain Initiative: An Innovative Framework For Coordinated Global Brain Research Efforts

The way forward for neuroethics in Japan: A review of five topics surrounding present challenges

The BRAIN Initiative and Neuroethics: Enabling and Enhancing Neuroscience Advances for Society

Assessing the Perceived Value of Neuroethics Questions and Policy to Neuro-Entrepreneurs

Ethical Issues in Neuroscience and Neuropsychiatric: A Review of Major Issues

Features of cultural research in the framework of cultural neuroscience: development prospects and ethical dilemmas

Towards a Governance Framework for Brain Data

The ethical and legal landscape of brain data governance

Mapping the Ethical Issues of Brain Organoid Research and Application

Four Ethical Priorities for Neurotechnologies and AI

The coming decade of digital brain research: A vision for neuroscience at the intersection of technology and computing

Research on Neuroethics and Relevant Issues

Grand Challenges for Global Brain Sciences

Integrating Modern Neuroscience with Traditional Philosophical Theories

Minding Rights: Mapping Ethical and Legal Foundations of 'Neurorights'

On Neurorights

Potential for Bias in the Context of Neuroethics