An philosophy discussion between W.V. Quine, a philosophy professor and a neuroscientist from MIT.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=926639CC3E3228AB
An extremely interesting piece. Quine's empiricist physicalism quite interesting and, although I disagree with his radical empiricism, I find he frequently has very interesting arguments to make against the idealists and material-skeptics. I especially liked part 2, where he argues that neurological states are the only evidentiary information we have about mind states and that claiming identity of mind/neurological states is the only coherent option we have. He likewise points out that the only empirically justifiable alternative - denying 'mental' states - is equivalent to identifying the two.

still have to watch but it seems interesting.

I'm actually gonna write my Advanced Methodology paper about Quine, at least partly, namely about rationalism vs. empiricism in economics

I'm actually gonna write my Advanced Methodology paper about Quine, at least partly, namely about rationalism vs. empiricism in economics
If you're interested in this more generally, I think you should look into Aristotle and some of those along his lines - Aristotle basically denies that it is meaningless to talk about a differentiation between 'empirical' reasoning and 'logical' reasoning as regards reality. Reality is both empirical (a case of experience, a situation) as well as logical (we can not make statements about inconsistent properties).
I've rejected Cartesian dualism for similar reasons.

and Roderick Long does something similar in his Wittgenstein/Austrian Economics book. Long of course is also an Aristotelian.

any work in particular by Aristotle pertaining to this? I think there may be some stuff in the Blackwell Companion (or something like that) to Rationalism.

just checked it, yeah, quite a few entries for Aristotle

any work in particular by Aristotle pertaining to this?
Unfortunately, due to our lack of access to the books he prepared for general reading, Aristotle's arguments and questions are scattered all about, mixed in with his summaries and criticisms of the views of others. This is one of the reasons why there are such broad interpretations of Aristotle - aside from basic logic, for example, I have only limited similarity in my views to the Scholastics.