New conceptual and technological developments bring neuroscientists closer to other disciplines, and to other fields in neuroscience with different traditions, despite having overlapping interests. While some neuroscientists may underrate the potential benefits of successful interdisciplinary collaborations, some may be unaware of the typical difficulties of such collaborations or not trained in skills that render them fruitful. Here, we illustrate how interdisciplinary interactions have long been part of neuroscience, although they are often challenging, because neuroscientists may be confronted with concepts, assumptions, and interpretative horizons that differ from their own. This can lead to misunderstanding and little mutual appreciation. Using the historical development of brain imaging techniques, we distinguish different types of interdisciplinary interactions and illustrate some of their benefits. In addition, we present challenges at the interface between traditional laboratory-type approaches and those of clinical or computational neuroscience, and of ecological field experiments. To address these, we invite neuroscientists to consider philosophers as collaboration partners with complementary expertise, which includes special consideration of language use, underlying assumptions and proficiency in conceptual analysis. This expertise can be used by neuroscientists to increase their understanding and to address some difficulties in interdisciplinary interactions more effectively. The benefits of these interactions can be expected to outweigh some challenges in the dialogue with philosophers. Importantly, neuroscientists can choose between reading philosophical literature, participating in joint events with philosophers, and integrating philosophers into neuroscience projects. This may allow neuroscientists to explore unforeseen possibilities to improve or initiate collaborations with scientists from other fields and disciplines.

Philosophy has long been debated for its relevance to natural sciences. Drawing from evolutionary biology, I exemplify how philosophy contributed to scientific discourse, in particular to the concept of genes and traits. Rather than determining distinct traits, genes influence the plastic development of traits, especially during sensitive periods. EvoDevo further integrates philosophical insights to explore how developmental processes influence evolutionary change. I highlight the concept of heterochrony which describes temporal changes of developmental events during evolution. I argue that neuroscience could also benefit from similar conceptual scrutiny. In the paper, I discuss the expansion of the human neocortex in light of heterochrony and developmental plasticity as a key example. Plasticity allows organisms to adapt to fluctuating environments characteristic of the human cognitive niche and contributes to diversity. As an effect of heterochrony, postnatal brain development in modern humans is prolonged and the brain remains highly plastic. While periods of plasticity enable developmental variability, they also introduce the risk of neurodevelopmental aberrations, such as in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is characterized by an abnormal prolongation of neuroplasticity due to an impaired excitatory/inhibitory balance and excessive synaptic pruning, particularly in the prefrontal cortex. This “overpruning” combined with delayed maturation may contribute to the disorder´s onset and progression. The interplay between environmental factors and neurodevelopment during sensitive periods is crucial in shaping the disease outcome. This reconceptualization challenges traditional gene-for-trait paradigms and instead advocates for a focus on developmental timing during different life stages to better understand the etiology of psychopathologies and potential intervention strategies.