neuro test 1 Flashcards
Substance Dualism
mind and body are composed of different substances
what reasons does Levy give in support of his claim that substance dualism is false
- evolutionary biology and ethology (no categorical distinction between humans/non-human animals)
- cognitive sciences (mind is dependent on matter; when matter degrades, so does the mind. Subpersonal/unconscious mechanisms play a role in our decision-making and actions
- endorses physicalism (mind belongs to the same physical entity as the body/brain)
Every Person Cooks
Expanded Mind Thesis 2 Cognitive Claims
Thesis: the mind extends beyond the limits of the brain and body
- Philosophical Claim / Parity Thesis: anything that plays a role in cognition, even if it is external, it is a part of the mine
- Empirical Claim: those things exist
Clark and Chalmers’ argument for the extended mind thesis (premises)
1: beliefs are mental states, and therefore a part of the mine
2: beliefs can be made up of environmental features that play a role in driving cognition
so, the mind extends into the world (beyond brain/body)
(B)ME
Inga and Otto
- Inga believes the museum is on 53rd street, so the belief was somewhere in the memory waiting to be accessed
- Otto accessed notebook and goes to the museum
The notebook plays the same role in Otto’s cognition that Igna’s memory/belief plays in her. What is on the notebook is external, but is still a part of his mind. So, the external can be a part of the mind
Levy’s traditional vs direct means
traditional: via the presentation of evidence and argument (ex: psychoanalysis)
direct: bypasses rational capacities and works directly on neural structures (ex: surgery)
the “presumption” against direct means
Ceteris paribus (with all else being the same): we should use the traditional means of changing a person’s mind rather than direct means
Argument against direct manipulation + Levy’s response– AUTHENTICITY
– being true to oneself. DMs are antithetical to this, because they change or conceal who the person is / was
– Levy: the self is allowed to change and grow, it is not static. So, it is not always true that change is inauthentic
Argument against direct manipulation + Levy’s response– SELF KNOWLEDGE AND PERSONAL GROWTH
- only traditional means have the power to aim at the truth and thus increase our self-knowledge. DMs cannot aim at the truth as they are mechanical manipulations that bypass our rational capacities. Their power to alleviate symptoms also robs them of the power to assist with personal growth
– Levy: self-knowledge is good, but not always so needed. It is justifiable to weigh a direct intervention that can alleviate and also help us understand ourselves
Argument against direct manipulation + Levy’s response– MECHANIZATION OF SELF
– through DMs we treat ourselves as mere machines (things that are only mechanized and can be manipulated), rather than free, responsible agents
– Levy: cannot put this blanket statement. There is a choice of when and whether we bypass a patient’s rationality. The extent of treatment depends on the level of the patient’s insight into their condition, and whether it impacts their ability to act as a rational agent
Argument against direct manipulation + Levy’s response– TREATMENT OF SYMPTOMS RATHER THAN CAUSES
– DMs only cover the symptoms rather than getting to the root causes (if you take SSRIs, though you get more seretonin, the cause isnt changing). This could also foster political quietism
– Levy: traditional means also just treat symptoms. Also, sometimes, it is okay to just treat symptoms
What is Levy’s ultimate conclusion about the permissibility of direct vs traditional means to changing minds
some criticisms have merit, but they dont give us a reason to always prefer traditional means.
Looking at context is needed. and we cannot claim that one is permissible or impermissible. Need to look at all the details to make a moral judgement
Inequality applies to traditional means as well, and its quality varies by time and place
Treatment vs Enhancement in disease vs non-disease states
treatment: aimed at curing/preventing a disease
enhancement: not aimed at the above
Treatment vs Enhancement in Species-typical functioning
treatment: intervention aimed at restoring a person to normal functioning
enhancement: raising person above their natural baseline level of functioning
What does Levy think about the treatment / enhancement distinction
it is assumed to be a morally significant one.
treating disease: worthwhile. prima facie (correct until proved otherwise)
enhancement: a luxury; permissible or impermissible depending on the context
What does Levy think about the “constitutes a kind of cheating” argument
the use of the drug is not what constitutes the cheating, its the rules.
(ex: wealthier countries already have enhancements in the form of better training stuff– but we dont count this cheating)
What does Levy think about the “exacerbates inequalities”
enhancements are already available in the form of what the rich already get (better school, food, healthcare). So, if we worried about neuroenhancements, we should be about these too.
This is a valid concern, but cannot hold much weight because there is nothing new about it, as the disproportionate gap between classes has always existed and been growing
What might “moral enhancement” consist in, according to the authors
Drugs
- Oxytocin: promote trust
- SSRIs: co-operation / reduce aggression
- Ritalin: reduce aggression
Genetic Manipulation
Surgery
Explain the concern Persson & Savulescu raise about cognitive enhancement. Why are “biomedical” enhancements more concerning to them than “traditional” enhancements?
- Biomedical enhancement are developing at a rate at which we cannot effectively place moral/political? guidelines on them and can be used by “bad apples” for evil
- A few immoral people can cause a lot of trouble (terrorists)
Explain their argument that moral enhancement, once possible, should (or even must) accompany cognitive enhancement.
- with the consequential dangers of cognitive enhancement, safe moral enhancement is required
- if safe moral enhancement methods are developed, they must be obligatory
“since those who should take them are least likely to be inclined to use them”
What might “moral enhancement” consist in, according to the authors? Principles:
Morality is rooted in biology
- Altruism (self-sacrificial behavior)
- Justice (tit-for-tat) are core moral dispositions
can be influence by biomedical means → drugs, genetic manipulation, surgery
