Michael Pauen

An analysis of our commonsense concept of freedom yields two “minimal criteria”: Autonomy distinguishes freedom from compulsion; Authorship distinguishes freedom from chance. Translating freedom into “self-determination” can account for both criteria. Self-determination is understood as determination by “personal-preferences” which are constitutive for a person. Freedom and determinism are therefore compatible; the crucial question is not whether an action is determined at all but, rather, whether it is determined by personal preferences. This account can do justice to the most important intuitions concerning freedom, including the ability to do otherwise. Waiving determination, by contrast, would violate the minimal criteria rather than providing “more” freedom. It is concluded that self-determination provides everything that we can ask for if we ask for freedom

According to many philosophers, an 'explanatory gap' exists between third-person scientific theories and qualitative firstperson experience of mental states like pain feelings or colour experiences such that the former can't explain the latter. Here it is argued that the thought experiments that are invoked by this position are inconsistent, that the position requires a specific kind of first-person privilege which actually does not exist, and that the underlying argument is circular because it is based on the very 'intuition of distinctness'which it allegedly confirms. The second part of the paper argues that the intuition of distinctness which has seen a significant change during the history of science is itself a product of scientific development. It would follow that future scientific developments can change this intuition and even make the explanatory gap problem disappear

Abstract The rise of social neuroscience has brought the second-person perspective back into the focus of philosophy. Although this is not a new topic, it is certainly less well understood than the first-person and third-person perspectives, and it is even unclear whether it can be reduced to one of these perspectives. The present paper argues that no such reduction is possible because the second-person perspective provides a unique kind of access to certain facts, namely other persons' mental states, particularly, but not only, in social contexts. The paper starts with the idea that perspectives are ways of epistemic access that determine an epistemic subject's recognition of a certain object. While the first-person perspective is subjective because it is based on, and directed at, the epistemic subject's experiences, the third-person perspective, which is based on objective evidence and gives access to all kinds of entities, is objective. The second-person perspective, by contrast, is intersubjective because it is a relation between an epistemic subject and another sentient being's mental states. It involves the epistemic subject's replication of those states, a basic self/other distinction and a basic awareness of the relevant situational differences between the epistemic subject and the other being. This is why the second-person perspective is a perspective on a perspective, which involves a basic awareness of perspectivalness, even if second-person perspective taking may be subpersonal to a large extent

According to a widespread view, neuroscientific basic research tells us more about the essence of the mind than psychology and may, in the long run, even replace those higher level approaches. Contrary to this view, it is demonstrated that many features can only be observed and explained on a certain level of complexity. This is particularly obvious in the case of neuromarketing and neuroeconomics. In both cases, neuroscientific methods depend on behavioral paradigms. Still, neuroscientific research in these fields may enhance our understanding of the underlying neural mechanisms. In addition, neuroeconomics provide excellent conditions for the study of human decision making.

Keine wissenschaftliche Debatte ist in den letzten Jahren mit soviel Vehemenz in der Öffentlichkeit ausgetragen worden, wie der Streit um die Willensfreiheit. Der traditionelle Begriff von "Willensfreiheit", der auch dem deutschen Strafrecht und seinem Schuldbegriff zugrundeliegt, setzt voraus, daß Menschen jenseits aller psychologischen und neurobiologischen Determinanten entscheiden und handeln können. Eine solche Konzeption von Willensfreiheit ist weder begrifflich-philosophisch noch empirisch akzeptabel. In diesem Buch entwickeln Gerhard Roth und Michael Pauen gemeinsam ein neues Konzept der Willensfreiheit. Grundlage ist ein "aufgeklärter Naturalismus", der vorwissenschaftliche Phänomene, philosophische Begriffe und wissenschaftliche Methoden gleichermaßen ernst nimmt. Hieraus ergibt sich ein Verständnis von Freiheit, das die Fähigkeit zu selbstbestimmtem Handeln auf der Basis eigener Wünsche und Überzeugungen in den Mittelpunkt stellt. Roth und Pauen entgehen damit den Schwierigkeiten vieler traditioneller Konzeptionen, erfassen das Alltagsverständnis von Willensfreiheit und werden zugleich auch den Erkenntnissen der Neurobiologie gerecht. Ihr Konzept, so argumentieren die Autoren, macht zudem ein wesentlich differenzierteres Verständnis von Schuld und Verantwortung möglich, aus dem sich weitreichende Konsequenzen für das Strafrecht und den Strafvollzug ergeben. "Freie Handlungen dürfen weder unter Zwang noch unter vollständiger Determination vollzogen werden. Wir bezeichnen diese Forderung als Autonomieprinzip, aber Handlungen, die wir frei nennen, dürfen auch nicht zufällig sein."