Neuroethics at the World Science Festival

This video is from the "World Science Festival" meeting that took place on May 31st, 2007 in New York on the topic of "What it Means to Be Human."

The event was moderated by Charlie Rose. Participants include philosopher Daniel Dennett, artist Jonathan Harris, AI researcher Marvin Minsky, anthropologist Ian Tattersall, geneticist Francis Collins, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, philosopher Patricia Churchland, sociologist Nikolas Rose, embryonic stem cell biologist Renee Reijo Pera, and Nobel Laureates Harold Varmus and Paul Nurse.

In this clip, Nikolas Rose expresses doubts that the field of neuroethics will have any radical implications for jurisprudence, to which both Patricia Churchland and Francis Collins agree. Paul Nurse then brings up the problem of freewill, an issue which Daniel Dennett has written extensively on.

To watch the full discussion visit:
http://vimeo.com/groups/science/videos/4533831

Another excellent video related to this topic can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Seg8kjc6Z84

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Neuroethics
• Neurolaw
• Philosophy of Law
• Freewill
• Morality
• Neurophilosophy
• Sociology
• Genetic Predispositions

[SisyphusRedeemed]

This is a cool discussion, but only the first minute or so has anything to do with neuroethics (and it was basically a dismissal of the whole endeavor). This is really more about free will.

[LennyBound]

I don't know if I fully agree. It seems to me that the potential ethical implications of denying the existence of the common-sense conception of freewill (because of advancements in the neurosciences) could be considered an aspect of neuroethics. No?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Neuroscience certainly has implications for the free will debate, but that's not the direction the speakers were approaching it from. The point of approach they use was more the idea of genetic determinism, rather than neuronal determinism.

[LennyBound]

Ah, gotcha.

Joseph LeDoux argues that the age-old debate between genetics and environment can be solved by neuroscience. He thinks that genetic predispositions and environmental factors are two different ways of establishing neurological patterns. If that is correct, then it seems that the distinction between genetic determinism and neuronal determinism is a lot less clear then commonly believed.

[rooruffneck]

Dennett is playing a very fun languag-game, but, come on, we can all see that he is playing with words. His way of "explaining" free will is to simply call a certain kind of process an example of it. He makes no attempt to actually claim that there is a chooser inside human who can choose one reason over another. But I love his passion. And beard.

[heart4moocows]

Dennett, I think, makes the mistake of believing that choices must either be causally determined or random. However, a reason need not be sufficient (i.e., causal) in order to give purpose to a decision. It's a false dilemma -- as long as you're willing to concede that the principle of sufficient reason is not universally applicable.

[AutodidacticPhd]

" "correctional facility" is more a euphemism... for avoidance learning?"

Well, if you look back at the history of incarceration, the name really was supposed to be a literal description, it's mostly the cynical backlash from PC that makes it sound hollow.

My arguments against the effectiveness of punishment won't fit into a post... but what I do think is active; it satisfies a societal urge for vengeful justice like we see in things like the ultimatum game.

What's in a name, eh? ;)

[polymath7]

Dennett is absolutely spot-on here. Jesus Dan, why couldn't you be that pithy and lucid in your debate with that asshat D'Souza?

[polymath7]

I would have liked to hear from Minsky; his eccentric dismissiveness is always entertaining.

Does anyone else think Collins sounds just bit defensive when he says "...I'm a very sophisticated geneticist..." ?

Perhaps it's my imagination.

I like that the audience gets Collins' joke. Oprah's or Dr. Phil's audience would undoubtedly be mystified.

[polymath7]

I think "correctional facility" is much more a freely acknowledged euphemism than an earnest descriptor.

And I'm not quite sure why you consider the notion that punishment has or can have a deterrent effect delusional.

Surely the vast majority of humans have some significant capacity for avoidance learning?

Your screen name, by the way, seems only slightly less ego-masturbatory than mine. ;)

[AutodidacticPhd]

I think the point was missed when talking about neuroethical implications on the justice system. When a society is going to have reason to impinge on the civil freedoms of an individual may not change much, but HOW that is effected very likely will. We still call prisons "correctional facilities" in some deluded notion that punishment will make people behave better. But if the name really reflects our intentions as a society, what happens at such places is going to be altered as we learn more.

[DavidWillB]

With you on all counts and love the Fermat reference.

Have you heard the Tom Lehrer song that had a mention?

[DavidWillB]

I don't see the two as similar.

Philosophy approaches problems of behavior with questions about optimal results and unintended consequences, whereas the god-botherers merely claim they know the answers and don't back any thing up with reason.

[polymath7]

I.

Heartily agreed. Free will is scarcely an intelligible term, for it seems to beg the question, free of what?

Nor does the abandonment of this transparently illusory concept in any way undermine the concept of personal responsibility or justice -it only calls into question the concept of *punitive* justice. Russel'a analogy of a plague victim and a man with a propensity to commit forgeries ("...each must have his liberty curtailed until he has ceased to pose a threat...") strikes me...