Blog Editor


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

« Business Ethics and the Brain (Reiner) | Main | A Psychological Perspective on Property Law by Blumenthal »


Yes, I quite enjoyed reading an earlier draft of the paper.

The article-which a look forward to read- seems to be in similar vein to the condition diagnosticated by Stephen Morse (2006): "brain overclaim syndrome" (the tendency to believe that everything depends on what the brain does, or what neuroscience tell us that the brain does, impacting many areas of human existence)

My question is: is this not true?, that what the brain does affect every and all sphere of our human existence.

Hey Anibal,

My best answer to your question is to focus in on the first four letters of the fallacy P&P are concerned with: m-e-r-e. P&P do not deny that what the brain does affects every and all spheres of our human existence. Their argument is rather that we as persons, our minds, our consciousness, is not merely brains, is not reducible to brains. In Searle's terms, brain is a sine qua non, but it does not follow that mind is nothing but brain. The latter is the focus of their critique; they readily concede the former (as do most serious thinkers on this matter, IMO).

Had a quick read of the paper. Still the ghost in the machine i think. Furthermore it would appear that there is nothing that can be said about the mind and we know what Witgenstien said about that, one of the few things he said that made sense to me.

The comments to this entry are closed.