Online research in philosophy

Appeals to the idea of human nature are frequent in the voluminous literature on the ethics of enhancing human beings through biotechnology. Two chief concerns about the impact of enhancements on human nature have been voiced. The first is that enhancement may alter or destroy human nature. The second is that if enhancement alters or destroys human nature, this will undercut our ability to ascertain the good because, for us, the good is determined by our nature. The first concern assumes that altering or destroying human nature is in itself a bad thing. The second concern assumes that human nature provides a standard without which we cannot make coherent, defensible judgments about what is good. I will argue (1) that there is nothing wrong, per se, with altering or destroying human nature, because, on a plausible understanding of what human nature is, it contains bad as well as good characteristics and there is no reason to believe that eliminating some of the bad would so imperil the good as to make the elimination of the bad impermissible, and (2) that altering or destroying human nature need not result in the loss of our ability to make judgments about the good, because we possess a conception of the good by which we can and do evaluate human nature. I will argue that appeals to human nature tend to obscure rather than illuminate the debate over the ethics of enhancement and can be eliminated in favor of more cogent considerations.

As stated by Jean-Pierre Changeux (2004) in his last book, The Physiology of Truth , objective knowledge does exist, and our brains are naturally equipped to recognise it. The results presented here provide the first insights on (1) the cerebral basis of reasoning errors, and (2) the neurocognitive dynamics that lead the human brain towards logical truth. We propose to call this new approach “neuropedagogy of reasoning”.

Michael S. Gazzaniga is a renowned cognitive neuroscientist. He was Editor-in-Chief of the 1447 page book The Cognitive Neurosciences, which, for the past decade, has been the fattest book in my library, apart from the ‘unabridged’. His recent book The Ethical Brain has a Part III entitled “Free Will, Personal Responsibility, and the Law”. This Part addresses, from the perspective of cognitive neuroscience, some of the moral issues that have been dealt with in the present book. The aim of this Part III is to reconcile the materialist idea that brain activity is determined with the notion of moral responsibility, which normally depends upon the idea that we human agents possess free will.

In its predominant form, the understanding of the neurosciences, which stand in high public esteem, is a naturalistic one. The critique of this naturalism concerns the technical modelling of brain functions as a syntactic or control loop machine. Adequate solutions to the mind-body problem are not found in this way. An alternative exists in the shape of the methodical-culturalistic approach, which describes the neurosciences as human practice, modelled on the pragmatism of medicine: Starting from (diagnosed and described) defects, the medical practitioner searches for the causes of the disorder. The neuroscientist’s naïve focus on the central nervous system is replaced by the reflection on the actions and objectives of the neuroscientist himself. This results in a number of conclusions with regard to human/animal comparisons and to the importance of brain research for the self-image of human beings, for instance concerning free will.

I want to raise three questions for discussion: 1. How are a philosopher’s concerns about the human mind related to a neuroscientist’s concerns? 2. Can neuroscience explain everything that we want to understand about the human mind? 3. Does neuroscience threaten our dignity or humanity (or anything else that we cherish about ourselves)? Let’s take these questions one at a time.

What Makes Us Think?: A Neuroscientist and a Philosopher Argue about Ethics, Human Nature, and the Brain Content Type Journal Article Pages 91-97 DOI 10.1007/BF03216238 Authors Kenneth Williford, Department of Philosophy, The University of Iowa, 52242 Iowa City, IA USA Journal Minds and Machines Online ISSN 1572-8641 Print ISSN 0924-6495 Journal Volume Volume 15 Journal Issue Volume 15, Number 1.