Blog Editor

Blog Traffic




Notices

  • Copyright 2005-20012 by Adam Kolber
    All rights reserved.

« "Mind-Reading" Competition | Main | Conference on Emotions Research (Blumenthal) »

Comments

"the criteria for responsibility — intentionality and moral capacity — are social and legal concepts, not scientific, medical or psychiatric ones"

Social and legal concepts aren't shaped in a vacuum. These spheres are all intertwined with cross-connected feed-forward threads.

I pretty wellcome the intromisison of neuroscience in legal matters just for the obvious reason that what generates the "letter" and "spirit" of law is the mental processes of jusrists experts, and mental processes are physical states of our CNS (central nervous system). Recently Oxford University Press have published an excellent book that review what neuroscience and their branches can offer to law entitled "Law and the Brain". But with respect of the free will and criminal responsibility debate and the associated mechanistic assumptions underlying the scientific method that enable us to explain and predict phenomena deterministically, including our brains and thereby suggesting the illusion of freedom and other social aspects of human behaviours; i rotundly express an skeptical view and i embrace the perspective of a stochastic or probabilistic nature of our decisions mechanisms and overt executions in consonant with the neuroeconomics literature á la Glimcher postulating that we cannot predict complex behaviours because they are combinatorial explosive. So Free Will is not dead, even though we live in a scientific metaphysical world. Compatibilism is the right option. See D. Dennett (2003).

The comments to this entry are closed.