心理内容的神经权利与外在主义:表征神经技术读心术的“危害”。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Stephen Rainey
{"title":"心理内容的神经权利与外在主义:表征神经技术读心术的“危害”。","authors":"Stephen Rainey","doi":"10.1017/S0963180125000106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Neurorights are widely discussed as a means of protecting phenomena like cognitive liberty and freedom of thought. This article is especially interested in example cases where these protections are sought in light of fast-paced developments in neurotechnologies that appear capable of reading the mind in some significant sense. While it is prudent to take care and seek to protect the mind from prying, questions remain over the kinds of claims that prompt concerns over mind reading. The nature of these claims should influence how exactly rights may or may not offer justifiable solutions. Overall, the exploration of neurotechnological mind reading questions here will come in terms of philosophical accounts of mental content and neuroreductionism. The contribution will be to present a contextualization of questions arising from 'mind-reading' neurotechnology, and appraisal of if or how neurorights respond to them.</p>","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neurorights versus Externalism about Mental Content: Characterizing the 'Harm' of Neurotechnological Mind Reading.\",\"authors\":\"Stephen Rainey\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0963180125000106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Neurorights are widely discussed as a means of protecting phenomena like cognitive liberty and freedom of thought. This article is especially interested in example cases where these protections are sought in light of fast-paced developments in neurotechnologies that appear capable of reading the mind in some significant sense. While it is prudent to take care and seek to protect the mind from prying, questions remain over the kinds of claims that prompt concerns over mind reading. The nature of these claims should influence how exactly rights may or may not offer justifiable solutions. Overall, the exploration of neurotechnological mind reading questions here will come in terms of philosophical accounts of mental content and neuroreductionism. The contribution will be to present a contextualization of questions arising from 'mind-reading' neurotechnology, and appraisal of if or how neurorights respond to them.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180125000106\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180125000106","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

神经权利作为一种保护认知自由和思想自由等现象的手段被广泛讨论。本文特别感兴趣的例子是,鉴于神经技术的快速发展,这些保护措施似乎能够在某种意义上读懂思想。尽管谨慎的做法是小心翼翼地保护大脑不受窥探,但对于那些引发人们对读心术担忧的说法,问题仍然存在。这些主张的性质应影响权利究竟能否提供合理的解决办法。总的来说,这里对神经技术读心术问题的探索将从心理内容和神经还原论的哲学角度出发。贡献将是呈现由“读心术”神经技术引起的问题的背景化,并评估神经权利是否或如何对它们作出反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Neurorights versus Externalism about Mental Content: Characterizing the 'Harm' of Neurotechnological Mind Reading.

Neurorights are widely discussed as a means of protecting phenomena like cognitive liberty and freedom of thought. This article is especially interested in example cases where these protections are sought in light of fast-paced developments in neurotechnologies that appear capable of reading the mind in some significant sense. While it is prudent to take care and seek to protect the mind from prying, questions remain over the kinds of claims that prompt concerns over mind reading. The nature of these claims should influence how exactly rights may or may not offer justifiable solutions. Overall, the exploration of neurotechnological mind reading questions here will come in terms of philosophical accounts of mental content and neuroreductionism. The contribution will be to present a contextualization of questions arising from 'mind-reading' neurotechnology, and appraisal of if or how neurorights respond to them.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics is designed to address the challenges of biology, medicine and healthcare and to meet the needs of professionals serving on healthcare ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and rehabilitation centres. The aim of the journal is to serve as the international forum for the wide range of serious and urgent issues faced by members of healthcare ethics committees, physicians, nurses, social workers, clergy, lawyers and community representatives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信