Intentional explanation and attributions of mentality -- International systems -- Reply to Arbib and Gunderson -- Brain writing and mind reading -- The nature of theory in psychology -- Skinner skinned -- Why the law of effect will not go away -- A cure for the common code? -- Artificial intelligence as philosophy and as psychology -- Objects of consciousness and the nature of experience -- Are dreams experiences? -- Toward a cognitive theory of consciousness -- Two approaches to mental (...) images -- Why you can't make a computer that feels pain -- Free will and personhood -- Mechanism and responsibility -- The abilities of men and machines -- Conditions of personhood -- On giving libertarians what they say they want -- How to change your mind -- Where am I? (shrink)

Personhood is a foundational concept in ethics, yet defining criteria have been elusive. In this article we summarize attempts to define personhood in psychological and neurological terms and conclude that none manage to be both specific and non-arbitrary. We propose that this is because the concept does not correspond to any real category of objects in the world. Rather, it is the product of an evolved brain system that develops innately and projects itself automatically and irrepressibly onto the world whenever (...) triggered by stimulus features such as a human-like face, body, or contingent patterns of behavior. We review the evidence for the existence of an autonomous person network in the brain and discuss its implications for the field of ethics and for the implicit morality of everyday behavior. (shrink)

The focus of much recent debate between realists and eliminativists about the propositional attitudes obscures the fact that a spectrum of positions lies between these celebrated extremes. Appealing to an influential theoretical development in cognitive neurobiology, I argue that there is reason to expect such an “intermediate” outcome. The ontology that emerges is a revisionary physicalism. The argument draws lessons about revisionistic reductions from an important historical example, the reduction of equilibrium thermodynamics to statistical mechanics, and applies them to the (...) relationship developing between propositional attitude psychology and this potential neuroscientific successor. It predicts enough conceptual change to rule out a straightforward realism about the attitudes; but at the same time it also resists the eliminativist's comparison of the fate awaiting the propositional attitudes to that befalling caloric fluid, phlogiston, and the like. (shrink)

Debates are taking place on the opportunity or not of establishing links between ethics and neuroscience. At first glance, this proposition jeopardizes a traditional conception of ethics that distinguishes it clearly from the empirical sciences. Taking this step seems to involve a deterministic and reductionist view of ethics. We argue in this article that, contrary to the views of some critics, neuroscience can be useful for ethics. Five arguments against integrating neurosciences in ethics are presented (determinism, naturalistic fallacy, dualism, reductionism (...) and the hegemony of objectivity). We claim that these arguments do not imply the impossibility of the integration of neuroscience in ethics but constitute rather important qualifications that must be taken into account. Our next step is to present an emergentist and interdisciplinary neurophilosophical approach, which we distinguish from the neurophilosophy of ethics proposed by Patricia Churchland. We go on with the presentation of a research sector in neurosciences (neuroscience of moral reasoning and moral emotions) that illustrates the interest of the proposed neurophilosophical approach. The article concludes with critical remarks. (shrink)

Provides a philosophical analysis of such biological concepts as natural selection, adaptation, speciation, and evolution.

Confronter un scientifique et un philosophe sur les neurosciences, leurs résultats, leurs projets, leur capacité à soutenir un débat sur la morale, sur les normes, sur la paix, tel est l'objet de ce livre. Le débat d'idées est trop rare en France. Affirmations péremptoires, critiques unilatérales, discussions incompréhensibles, dérisions faciles ne cessent d'encombrer le terrain sans souci pour des arguments qui, avant d'être convaincants,aspirent à être tenus pour plausibles, c'est-à -dire dignes d'être plaidés. Vivre un dialogue totalement libre et ouvert (...) entre un scientifique et un philosophe constitue une expérience exceptionnelle pour l'un comme pour l'autre. " (P. R. et J. -P. C. ). Paul Ricoeur est professeur honoraire à l'université Paris-X et professeur émérite à l'université de Chicago. Il est l'auteur de très nombreux ouvrages, notamment "La métaphore vive", "Temps et Récit", "Soi-même comme un autre". Jean-Pierre Changeux est professeur au Collége de France et à l'Institut Pasteur, membre de l'Académie des sciences. Il est notammentl'auteur de "L'Homme neuronal", "Matiére à pensée" (avec Alain Connes), et "Raison et Plaisir". ". (shrink)