Brain, Mind and Machine: What Are the Implications of Deep Brain Stimulation for Perceptions of Personal Identity, Agency and Free Will?

Lipsman, Nir; Glannon, Walter

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01978.x

Cited by 85 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, the aim is to, as it were, 'neuronalize' the ethical concept, which means to reduce it to neuronal facts. 10 This, however, involves the danger of an uncritical acceptance of empirical presuppositions and resulting terminological definitions. Traditionally, this form of inference has even been presented as fallacious.…”

Section: The Threat Of Naturalistic and Normative Fallaciesmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A fallacious jar? The peculiar relation between descriptive premises and normative conclusions in neuroethics

Wagner

Northoff

2015

Theor Med Bioeth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethical questions have traditionally been approached through conceptual analysis. Inspired by the rapid advance of modern brain imaging techniques, however, some ethical questions appear in a new light. For example, hotly debated trolley dilemmas have recently been studied by psychologists and neuroscientists alike, arguing that their findings can support or debunk moral intuitions that underlie those dilemmas. Resulting from the wedding of philosophy and neuroscience, neuroethics has emerged as a novel interdisciplinary field that aims at drawing conclusive relationships between neuroscientific observations and normative ethics. A major goal of neuroethics is to derive normative ethical conclusions from the investigation of neural and psychological mechanisms underlying ethical theories, as well as moral judgments and intuitions. The focus of this article is to shed light on the structure and functioning of neuroethical arguments of this sort, and to reveal particular methodological challenges that lie concealed therein. We discuss the methodological problem of how one can--or, as the case may be, cannot--validly infer normative conclusions from neuroscientific observations. Moreover, we raise the issue of how preexisting normative ethical convictions threaten to invalidate the interpretation of neuroscientific data, and thus arrive at question-begging conclusions. Nonetheless, this is not to deny that current neuroethics rightly presumes that moral considerations about actual human lives demand empirically substantiated answers. Therefore, in conclusion, we offer some preliminary reflections on how the discussed methodological challenges can be met.

show abstract

Section: The Threat Of Naturalistic and Normative Fallaciesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Current debates in neuroethics mostly focus on the application of neuroscientific findings to concrete ethical questions, such as free will [8], moral responsibility and psychopathy [9], and impacts of brain interventions on personal identity [10]. Little, however, has been said about the general structure of how these arguments operate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A fallacious jar? The peculiar relation between descriptive premises and normative conclusions in neuroethics

Wagner

Northoff

2015

Theor Med Bioeth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effect of DBS treatment on the patient's self depends on the extent to which this balance is disrupted. Lipsman and Glannon (2013) propose to distinguish between personal identity and the sense of (free) agency in explaining of DBS-induced effects on the patient's self. With regard to personal identity, they claim that DBS treatment may influence biological factors, which in turn can have an effect on the patients' memories, character traits, and narrative identity.…”

Section: Effects Of Dbs Treatment On the Selfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Situating the self: understanding the effects of deep brain stimulation

Dings

Bruin

2015

Phenom Cogn Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article proposes a theoretical model to account for changes in self due to Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS). First, we argue that most existing models postulate a very narrow conception of self, and thus fail to capture the full range of potentially relevant DBS-induced changes. Second, building on previous work by Shaun Gallagher, we propose a modified 'pattern-theory of self', which provides a richer picture of the possible consequences of DBS treatment.

show abstract

“…Autonomy is a conditio sine qua non for evaluating postoperative iatrogenic harms to implanted patients. However, with reversible neurosurgery intervention involving implanted brain devices (e.g., deep brain stimulation), there is an ongoing debate about how we should respect a patient's postoperative autonomy (Muller and Walter 2010;Wardrope 2013;Lipsman and Glannon 2013;Kraemer 2013;Baylis 2013;Gilbert 2013a).…”

Section: Do Predictive Brain Devices Threaten or Increase Autonomy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Threat to Autonomy? The Intrusion of Predictive Brain Implants

Gilbert

2015

AJOB Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The world's first-in-human clinical trial using invasive intelligent brain devices-devices that predict specific neuronal events directly to the implanted person-has been completed with significant success. Predicting brain activity before specific outcomes occur brings a raft of unprecedented applications, especially when implants offer advice on how to respond to the neuronal events forecasted. Although these novel predictive and advisory implantable devices offer great potential to positively affect patients following surgery by enhancing quality of life (e.g., provide control over symptoms), substantial ethical concerns remain. The invasive nature of these novel devices is not unique; however, the inclusion of predictive and advisory functionalities within the implants, involving permanent monitoring of brain activity in real time, raises new ethical issues to explore, especially in relation to concerns for patient autonomy. What might be the effects of ongoing monitoring of predictive and advisory brain technologies on a patient's postoperative sense of autonomy? The role played by predictive and advisory implantable brain devices on patient's feelings of autonomy following surgery is completely unknown. The first section of this article addresses this shortcoming by reporting on a pilot study that we conducted with one of the patients implanted with one of these novel brain devices. The second section examines how overreliance on predictive and advisory brain technologies may threaten patients' autonomy. The third section looks into ethical problems concerning how devices delivering automated therapeutic responses might, hypothetically speaking, be used to monitor and control individual's autonomy through inhibition of undesirable behaviors.

show abstract

Brain, Mind and Machine: What Are the Implications of Deep Brain Stimulation for Perceptions of Personal Identity, Agency and Free Will?

Cited by 85 publications

References 1 publication

A fallacious jar? The peculiar relation between descriptive premises and normative conclusions in neuroethics

A fallacious jar? The peculiar relation between descriptive premises and normative conclusions in neuroethics

Situating the self: understanding the effects of deep brain stimulation

A Threat to Autonomy? The Intrusion of Predictive Brain Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About