Neuroethics 8

Greetings!

This weeks neuroethics debate topic touches on a pretty abstract concept that the active field of neuroscience does not always consider. This is something that the early developers of psychology probably thought a lot more about, and as the discipline of neuroscience started to take shape, a more biological and physiological view dominated further investigation. This topic is considering what it means to consider the concept of the mind as opposed to to just an isolated brain. Please read the article and divulge you most honest thoughts about what it means to have a mind and interpret other beings as having minds as well. Can we really say for certain that we are interacting with someone else's, or our own, mind or brain? Or are these two entities tightly coupled to each other, and therefore define each other's contributions to a consciousness? Can neuroscience play a role in determining a difference between the two? Or is this something more fit for philosophy? Or should it be a hybrid of the two? Taking into consideration the two examples presented, can we make logical inferences about what it means for us and others to have minds? Does it reach a point where there is no equal contribution from the brain and the mind?

Neuroethics and the Problem of Other Minds: Implications of Neuroscience for the Moral Status of Brain-Damaged Patients and Nonhuman Animals

Please post your responses to the CU Neuroscience facebook page and copy into the Student Journals for credit!!!! Due October 30th!!!!

If you have trouble accessing the article, please let me know immediately!!! I found it on CU's campus and am not sure if it is accessible off of their wifi. Thanks!