--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In an article in the NY Times magazine today > about the growing role that neuroscience is > playing in law, Stephen J. Morse, professor > of law and psychiatry at the University of > Pennsylvania, is quoted as saying: > > "I'm a thoroughgoing materialist, who believes > that all mental and behavioral activity is the > causal product of physical events in the brain." > > Fair enough. But he's also quoted as follows: > > "Suppose neuroscience could reveal that reason > actually plays no role in determining human > behavior....Suppose I could show you that your > intentions and your reasons for your actions > are post hoc rationalizations that somehow > your brain generates to explain to you what > your brain has already done" without your > conscious participation. > > Who is the "you" to whom the brain is > purportedly offering this explaination? > > Who is the "you" who is not consciously > participating in what the brain generates? > > Don't Morse's references to this mysterious > "you" constitute an implicit recognition > that there's *more* to mind than brain, > contradicting his "thoroughgoing > materialist" self-characterization? > > Maybe he was just speaking imprecisely to > make a point. And "without your conscious > participation" is the article writer's > contribution, possibly a clumsy paraphrase > of something Morse went on to say to clarify > the quoted statement. > > But I'm intrigued. I've seen this sort of > apparent contradiction from materialists > before, as if some part of them *knew* there > was a "you" that isn't encompassed by brain > but had simply excluded it from their > theorizing, only to let it slip out in > unguarded moments. >
The "you" that he's referring to is the illusory construct that ties all the different behaviors and observations together.
