0
   

The Brain and The Law

 
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2009 08:50 pm
Neuroscientist Dr David Eagleman considers some emerging questions relating to law and neuroscience, challenging long-held assumptions in criminality and punishment and predicting a radical new future for the legal system.

YouTube - The Brain and The Law
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,398 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 07:55 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;67863 wrote:
Neuroscientist Dr David Eagleman considers some emerging questions relating to law and neuroscience, challenging long-held assumptions in criminality and punishment and predicting a radical new future for the legal system.

YouTube - The Brain and The Law
This is excelent study, really giving a clear understanding of the human mind, I sorely wish that all philosophers should mandatorily watch this before even speaking of any neurosience relating topics, instead of concjouring up their own nonsens.
0 Replies
 
jack phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 09:41 pm
@hue-man,
I don't understand the connection from brain tumors and shooting sprees to psychology is neurology. The whole philosophical assumption behind neurology=psychology is that the unconscious is dominant(or even all that is), i.e. a Freudian hypothesis.

So: Freud, therefore not Freud. Razz

(And of course common law is crap! But what does that have to do with brain surgery?)

And ethics makes a showing at the end? Probabilistic ethics at that?

You are your biology.
And here is your ethics.
Your welcome.


Yes, it is creepy.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 10:40 pm
@jack phil,
This all comes very much accordingly with what I have been defending so far with a few more non aligned thinkers out there...
And of course it matters when concerning free will. That is exactly what was underlined in it in the first place, was it not ?
although it was clearly avoided any direct answer to that, and I can empathise why when I look to the forum reactions on this issue, it was suficiently sugested that such was the case.
...Anyway, thanks for bring it up Hue ! Smile
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 12:36 am
@jack phil,
jack;160203 wrote:
I don't understand the connection from brain tumors and shooting sprees to psychology is neurology. The whole philosophical assumption behind neurology=psychology is that the unconscious is dominant(or even all that is), i.e. a Freudian hypothesis.

So: Freud, therefore not Freud. Razz

(And of course common law is crap! But what does that have to do with brain surgery?)

And ethics makes a showing at the end? Probabilistic ethics at that?

You are your biology.
And here is your ethics.
Your welcome.

Yes, it is creepy.
A tumor will apply pressure to surrounding brain tissue and thereby alter the bloodflow, the chemical flow and neurologically flow.
jack phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 11:39 am
@HexHammer,
And I can link a story of a woman lifting a Volkswagon that just fell on her husband, with nothing but her own strength.

Of course, there isn't any money in that direction.

The point being, the 'philosophical' foundations or conclusions presented in the video do not follow from the case studies, which are the important thing.

The brain=you is no more true than mind=you. This is one of Wittgenstein's main lines of attack. The fundamental confusion in philosophy is that words point at something without ever going proxy for it.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 03:29 pm
@jack phil,
BRAIN = eu

BALLS = us

euro.$ = .127-

:bigsmile:
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 05:09 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;67863 wrote:
Neuroscientist Dr David Eagleman considers some emerging questions relating to law and neuroscience, challenging long-held assumptions in criminality and punishment and predicting a radical new future for the legal system.

YouTube - The Brain and The Law



Thank you for sharing this with us. I find it odd that it took almost a year for someone to respond to such great info.:detective:
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 04:56 pm
@reasoning logic,
This all plays into the idea that retributive ethics is nonsense. Criminals should be, if possible, rehabilitated and carefully monitored, not simply punished and left to rot.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Brain and The Law
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/20/2019 at 04:45:08