HQ

Many arguments for physicalism, the view that all that exists is describable in terms of physics, assume that, at some point, there will be enough convincing empirical evidence to show that folk psychology, the view that mental stuff or souls exist, is false.  Let's be clear: this would be a monumental feat and, so far, no one has come close. And, absent any empirical evidence, folk psychology carries on. So, what kind of evidence would do it? You can't exactly show anyone that there is no mental/soulish stuff in the world. It's no good pointing at a brain and saying, "see! There's no soul there!" What you would need is some way to show that one can manipulate physical stuff in such a way that mental stuff becomes highly implausible.  Many philosophers thought that such evidence was available when it was noted that personality and mental function is dramatically altered by physical changes. But this doesn't go far enough. It really doesn't th...

Much public debate, especially in the area of ethics, is being fueled by new work in neuroscience. Scientists are now able to analyze the “lighting storm” which occurs in our brains whenever we move an arm, react to an event or feel the urge to eat. One part of this research suggests that many decisions are taken due to unconscious reasons. A criminal might, for example, be responding to an urge that is below their consciousness; they are not aware of it. The same neuroscience contests that these mechanisms are a result of both the genetic pre-disposition and the environment the person inherits. These are the primary causes leading to a state of being which in turn leads to an action, a crime perhaps. Of course, this line of thought has ramifications for the criminal justice system. Should judges be guided by evidence provided by neuroscience when passing judgment? David Eagleman thinks they should. He suggests that this could lead to a system based less on culpability (since free wi...