Can Brain Imaging Breach Our Mental Privacy?

Gilead, Amihud

doi:10.1007/s13164-014-0226-z

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Neuroethics’ claims about neuroimaging raise numerous philosophical and empirical issues, to begin with the confusion of ‘mental privacy’ and ‘brain privacy’ (Gilead, 2015). Our purpose is not to discuss them, but only to note that asserting that neuroimaging ‘reveals information about the mind’ is a petitio principii in the guise of a factual statement.…”

Section: Uniquely Neuroethical Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes neuroethics possible?

Vidal

2018

History of the Human Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its emergence in the early 2000s, neuroethics has become a recognized, institutionalized and professionalized field. A central strategy for its successful development has been the claim that it must be an autonomous discipline, distinct in particular from bioethics. Such claim has been justified by the conviction, sustained since the 1990s by the capabilities attributed to neuroimaging technologies, that somehow ‘the mind is the brain’, that the brain sciences can illuminate the full range of human experience and behavior, and that neuroscientific knowledge will have dramatic implications for views of the human, and challenge supposedly established beliefs and practices in domains ranging from self and personhood to the political organization of society. This article examines how that conviction functions as neuroethics’ ideological condition of possibility.

show abstract

Section: Uniquely Neuroethical Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes neuroethics possible?

Vidal

2018

History of the Human Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, an actualist view-according to which nothing but the actual exists-as this view is also deterministic (e.g., Spinoza's philosophy), it is not compatible with free choice and with free will. As panenmentalism defends the possibilities of free will and free choice, moral responsibility gains a strong support theory conveys to natural sciences, see Gilead, 2013;2014a;2014b;2015a;2015b;and 2016. from panenmentalism, according to which the possibilities that we did not choose are no less real than the ones we did. Thus, we normally enjoy a real free choice between real possibilities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In various publications of (Gilead, 2013;2014a;2014b;2015a;2015b), he has referred to some of these amazing, sometimes even shocking or tragic, phenomena. The dogmatically harsh reaction of Pauling to Shechtman's discovery of quasi-crystals ("There are no quasi-crystals, there are quasi-scientists!")…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stanley Milgram’s Experiments and the Saving of the Possibility of Disobedience

Gilead

2016

Journal of Social Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Milgram's experiments have exposed the bitter truth that, against their moral standards, the great majority of subjects actually obey malevolent authorities and are ready to cause great suffering, even death, to innocent victims. The reason for such unexpected and shocking behavior can be perfectly explained in the light of panenmentalist philosophy, according to which individual pure possibilities and their relations are as real as actualities and, normally, persons are free to choose between alternative pure possibilities in whatsoever circumstances. Whenever persons ignore the singular individuality of other people, such persons can cause most evil, entirely immoral deeds, to the others simply because impersonal authorities order them to do so. Hence, panenmentalism reveals the philosophical conditions upon which obedience or defiance to malevolent authority is possible.

show abstract