Brains, lies, and psychological explanations

Illes, Judy; Churchland, Patricia Smith; Roskies, Adina L.; Morse, Stephen J.; Buller, T; Zoloth, Laurie; Parens, Erik; Kirschen, Matthew; Canli, Turhan; Foster, Kenneth R.; Henderson, Jaimie M.; Klitzman, Robert; Greely, Henry T.; Buller, Tom

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198567219.003.0004

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Por ejemplo, la filosofía naturalizada mediante la neurociencia y las presuntas evidencias empíricas de los hallazgos neurobiológicos no son base suficiente para ciertas distinciones conceptuales, como el de tener o no control de las propias acciones (un cierto equivalente funcional de la libertad), y, desde luego, no son fundamento de nociones normativas (Buller, 2008;Churchland, 2008). Asimismo, con mucha razón, Bennett y Hacker critican el reduccionismo neurocientífico, porque comete una "falacia mereológica" (Bennett y Hacker, 2003), al atribuir propiedades a las partes que deberían atribuirse al todo.…”

Section: Un Nuevo Horizonte Filosófico Marcado Por La Neurofilosofíaunclassified

¿Neurofilosofía en perspectiva zubiriana?

Sancho¹

2016

Arbor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMEN:La actual situación intelectual está caracteriza por el auge de una neurofilosofía, basada en los nuevos datos de las neurociencias, que intenta sustituir los métodos tradicionales de la filosofía por el método de las ciencias naturales. Mi propósito es mostrar que la filosofía de Zubiri, que también está conectada con las ciencias naturales, constituye una fecunda alternativa a la neurofilosofía cientificista y reduccionista, porque su noología está estrechamente ligada a la neurobiología, especialmente a través de las nociones de formalidad y formalización, que constituyen la base de una nueva concepción de la inteligencia y de la realidad.PALABRAS CLAVE: Inteligencia, realidad, impresión, formalidad, formalización, cerebro. ABSTRACT:The current intellectual situation is characterized by the vigour of neurophilosophy, founded on the new data of the neurosciences, in an attempt to replace traditional philosophical methods by the method of natural sciences. My aim is to show that Zubiri's philosophy, which is also associated with the natural sciences, is a successful alternative to the pseudo-scientific and reductionist neurophilosophy, because his Noology is intrinsically connected to Neurobiology, especially through the concepts of formality and formalization, which are the basis for grounding a new conception of intelligence and reality.

show abstract

Section: Un Nuevo Horizonte Filosófico Marcado Por La Neurofilosofíaunclassified

¿Neurofilosofía en perspectiva zubiriana?

Sancho¹

2016

Arbor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There has been discussion in the literature regarding whether neuroimaging might be able to capture legal constructs like intentionality, reason, responsibility or truthfulness instead of the less helpful (from a legal point of view) neurobiological and psychological constructs like impulsivity or impaired goal-setting [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82]. And indeed some progress has been made on using neuroimaging to determine whether one is lying, or whether a memory is genuine, as well as to ascertain personality traits, interpersonal skills, and some underlying emotions and desires [83,84] But in many respects, this is the wrong perspective to be taking.…”

Section: Conclusion: Connecting the Brain To The Mindmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traumatic Brain Injury, Neuroscience, and the Legal System

Hardcastle

2014

Neuroethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay addresses the question: What is the probative value of including neuroscience data in court cases where the defendant might have had a traumatic brain injury (TBI)? That is, this essay attempts to articulate how well we can connect scientific data and clinical test results to the demands of the Daubert standard in the United States' court system, and, given the fact that neuroimaging is already being used in our courts, what, if anything, we should do about this fact. Ultimately, I am not sure that there are completely satisfactory answers to this query at this particular time in our legal history. I briefly rehearse the recent use of brain research in our legal system, summarize how neuroscience data regarding TBI and its relation to poor behavioral outcomes are currently used in the courtroom, review challenges with using these data, and highlight fundamental tensions between how the legal system views the causes of behavior and how medicine, neuroscience, and psychology do. Until these tensions are resolved, it is unclear the place neuroscience data should have in courts.This essay addresses the question: What is the probative value of including neuroscience data in court cases where the defendant might have had a traumatic brain injury (TBI), both for civilians and for our new population of TBI victims, returning combat veterans? That is, this essay attempts to articulate how well we can connect scientific data and clinical test results to the demands of the Daubert standard in the United States' court system, and, given the fact that neuroimaging is already being used in our courts, what, if anything, we should do about this fact. Ultimately, I am not sure that there are completely satisfactory answers to this query at this particular time in our legal history, though we are starting to see trends that suggest significant revisions in how courts view responsibility, punishment, and culpability. Incidence of Traumatic Brain InjuriesThe U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that there are more than 1.7 million TBIs per year in the United States, ranging from mild concussions to the most severe form of trauma [1]. A brain injury occurs approximately every 15 s in the U.S., and TBI is the leading cause of death in children and adolescents [2]. In addition, a recent review of European TBI studies calculates an incidence rate of about 235 per 100,000 there, with an average mortality rate of about 15 per 100,000 [3]. In general, TBI is the second leading cause of injury and death in adults, after general trauma [4]. Moreover, over five million Americans and almost eight million Neuroethics

show abstract

“…For example, neuroscientists can explain the neural processes of behavior, but not the presence of intentionality during a criminal act (Greene & Cohen, ). Neuroimaging cannot uncover human reason (Buller, ; Gazzaniga & Steven, ) or personal responsibility (Gazzaniga, ) as such concepts are not anatomically localizable.…”

Section: Legal Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Neuroethics and Neurolaw of Brain Injury

Aggarwal

Ford

2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroethics and neurolaw are fields of study that involve the interface of neuroscience with clinical and legal decision-making. The past two decades have seen increasing attention being paid to both fields, in large part because of the advances in neuroimaging techniques and improved ability to visualize and measure brain structure and function. Traumatic brain injury (TBI), along with its acute and chronic sequelae, has emerged as a focus of neuroethical issues, such as informed consent for treatment and research, diagnostic and prognostic uncertainties, and the subjectivity of interpretation of data. The law has also more frequently considered TBI in criminal settings for exculpation, mitigation and sentencing purposes and in tort and administrative law for personal injury, disability and worker's compensation cases. This article provides an overview of these topics with an emphasis on the current challenges that the neuroscience of TBI faces in the medicolegal arena.

show abstract

Brains, lies, and psychological explanations

Cited by 9 publications

References 23 publications

¿Neurofilosofía en perspectiva zubiriana?

¿Neurofilosofía en perspectiva zubiriana?

Traumatic Brain Injury, Neuroscience, and the Legal System

The Neuroethics and Neurolaw of Brain Injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About