Part 1 - "This is Your Brain on Morality"

Patricia Churchland speaking at the "Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark" conference in October 2008. Her talk concerns the potential ethical implications of findings in the neurosciences.

This is Part 1 of 2.

For similar videos visit:
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Neuroethics
• Neurophilosophy
• Churchland
• Neuroscience
• Morality
• Metaethics
• Ethics
• Is
• Ought
• Gap
• Fact
• Value
• Dichotomy

[Rybot9000]

Lenny; What do you think about Cahill, Brizendine and Pinker? Do you think that sex-difference is innate or arises through neuroplastic change based on sociocultural values? The Microtus and Pan genuses would suggest more variety than genetic-determinism would allow for, we also observe this in human populations like the Chambri and various subsex of human sexuality like tomboys and "sissies". Something you've considered?

[LennyBound]

Haha... I have no idea. :-)

[nyscholartist]

I think that to understand this lecture it's necessary to have a background in Churchland's work. She goes on tangents and fails to explain, for instance, what is meant by the "tuning up of the reward system." The argument might well be coherent, but it isn't presented as such.

[AtheistAltar]

What is she talking about that values don't have to be created? Even if they're created while we are very young and can't think well for ourselves, it does nothing to show that values exist apart from mind-interpretation.

[LennyBound]

Word.

[RevolutionaryJam]

you can't derrive an "ought" from an "is" without an "if"

[ChaChinnngK]

You what ?

[RevolutionaryJam]

can't derrive an ought from an is wihtout an if dude

[Rybot9000]

Awesome one of my favourite lecturers and philosophers. Also first.