신경윤리학이란: 강남대 이상복교수 통역용
신경윤리학이란:
About the Lecture
Philosophers have long sought to answer questions about who we are, where we come from and where we’re going. Stephan Chorover frets that a widening circle of contemporary scientists embrace Sigmund Freud’s approach to these questions, which is to say, “Biology is destiny.” Neuroscientists are promoting an even narrower dogma, says Chorover, where “everything we are trying to understand can be understood in terms of underlying brain mechanisms, neurons and molecules.” How can we cultivate individual ethical acts, and how can society hope to respond to such challenges as violent conflict, or social and economic inequity, if all human behavior reduces to a set of neurological inevitabilities? Chorover describes and discredits the long history of biological reductionism, from phrenology (inferring faculties or traits from the shape of the skull), to Freud. He says that “chaotic interactions” derail determined behaviors. Says Chorover, “Complexity, contingency and context dependency argue against reductionism.” Mriganka Sur asks Chorover to go easy on neuroscience, pointing out that the discipline does take into account contingency and uncertainty, studying the impact of internal and external states on the complex system of the brain. He says, “we may never know everything about how our brains work but that does not mean we should not try to find out something.” He adds, “every scientific measurement involves reduction and possibility. You measure what you can with the tools you have….We measure to dig deeper to seek explanations that may well be part of the cognitive architecture.” Sur acknowledges that science “is hugely influenced by the values of the age” and can be used “to justify prevailing beliefs.” Yet he wonders if there are “universals in human behavior that might drive the quest for justice.”