Fernando Vidal Porto

This article starts from the observation that personal identity persists even after the complete replacement of all matter constituting the body throughout life. Through the analysis of phenomena such as old age, the differentiation of monozygotic twins, and cellular recycling, it demonstrates that information is more fundamental than the material substrate. This persistence is mathematically formalized using mutual information between temporal states of a system with a null material intersection. Building on this foundation, the article speculates on the possibility that the universe itself operates by analogous informational principles, where stars, galaxies, and physical laws themselves could be expressions of informational invariants. Biological death is reinterpreted as the loss of the capacity for self-organization, not necessarily as the disappearance of information. The article concludes with a provocation: what if life is just a particular case of a universal phenomenon of information persistence?

The reconstruction of a complex physical system, such as a human brain, from its destroyed state faces fundamental obstacles due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. This paper presents a thought experiment that circumvents these limitations by replacing direct measurement with a statistical inference process based on antagonistic processing of probable and improbable scenarios, blind observation with syntactic shuffling, and resonance annihilation in feedback cycles. The proposed method suggests that by subjecting a system to maximum noise and comparing results through successive cycles, one can isolate an informational invariant—a residual pattern that resists annihilation—which could, in principle, serve as a blueprint for physical reconstitution via entangled alignment principles. Philosophical implications for identity, consciousness, and the fundamental nature of information as primary reality are discussed.

Science in film, and usual equivalents such asscience on filmorscience on screen, refer to the cinematographic representation, staging, and enactment of actors, information, and processes involved in any aspect or dimension of science and its history. Of course, boundaries are blurry, and films shot as research tools or documentation also display science on screen. Nonetheless, they generally count asscientific film, andscience inandon filmorscreentend to designate productions whose purpose is entertainment and education. Moreover, these two purposes are often combined, and inherently concern empirical, methodological, and conceptual challenges associated withpopularization,science communication, and thepublic understanding of science. It is in these areas that the notion of thedeficit modelemerged to designate a point of view and a mode of understanding, as well as a set of practical and theoretical problems about the relationship between science and the public.

In Dark City, people live in a city that is constantly in the dark. The city is in fact a laboratory constructed by a race of Strangers who live below the urban surface to do experiments aimed at discovering what makes human beings human. The Strangers will survive only by becoming like them. To find out what humanity is, but assuming it is essentially related to memory, every day they paralyze all human activity, extract memories from individuals, mix them, and inject them back. When people wake up, they are totally different persons – but do not know it. This article examines how, starting with such a situation, Dark City explores the role of memory in personhood, the problem of authenticity, and the status of “false” memories in making the self, and how the connect to the experimental psychology and the neuroscience of memory.

Jean Starobinski on the Reason of Body In posthumous homage to Jean Starobinski (1920-2019) on the centennial of his birth, this article sketches his thought on the «reasons of the body», linking it to certain contemporary fields of research. Prolonging the «somatic turn» of the 1980s, more recent «emotional» and «interoceptive turns» claim to reintegrate the body into history, the humanities and the neurocognitive sciences. Starobinski’s perspective helps bring their limits to light. Conversely, approaching his critical enterprise from their vantage point highlights its unique way of linking history and phenomenology, its sustained attention to the experience of the self and bodily self-awareness, and its demonstration of how the «reasons of the body» may be intimately bound to the literary expression that embodies them.

This book explores the notion of endangerment which stands at the heart of a network of concepts, values and practices dealing with objects considered threatened by extinction, and with the procedures aimed at preserving them. It looks at some of the fundamental ways in which this process involves science, but also more than science: not only data and knowledge and institutions, but also affects and values. With a focus on endangerment sensibility, it encapsulates tensions between the normative and the utilitarian, the natural and the cultural.

ArgumentSeeing a prodigious cure happen and then testifying about it certainly differs from attending an air pump experiment in order to bear witness to it. Yet early-modern saint-making and the “new” or “experimental philosophy” shared juridical roots, and thereby an understanding of the role of testimony for the establishment of “matters of fact” and for the production of legitimate knowledge. The reforms carried out after the Council of Trent, especially during Urban VIII's pontificate, of the juridical procedures for saint-making in the Catholic Church implied a new attitude towards the examination of proposed miracles. Most of these miracles were healings. While the appeal to medical expertise had long been common, and skepticism had often manifested itself regarding cures or extraordinary bodily phenomena, both were now given formal status. Miracle inquests henceforth leaned towards refuting miraculousness by means of natural explanations. The procedure was systematized in a treatise published in the 1730s by Prospero Lambertini. The combination of Lambertini's work with the canonization causes in which he acted as the “devil's advocate” in charge of disputing arguments favorable to a sainthood candidate allows for a reconstruction of the interplay between the juridical and scientific economies of saint-making, and of the role of testimony in the production of trust and evidence.

Although the eighteenth century is not a chief interest of historians of psychology, nor is the history of psychology a main topic of Enlightenment studies, the era has long qualified as what a textbook of modern philosophy called "the century of psychology". The present article examines such a historiographical paradox, and asks in what senses eighteenth-century might deserve that label. For the general historian of the Enlightenment, as for historians of logic, esthetics, moral philosophy, or education, the label is justified by the psychologization experienced by those domains and others. The historian of the human sciences can agree because, especially in Germany, empirical psychology became during the eighteenth century an autonomous field of academic investigation. Psychology, under that name or otherwise, gained throughout Europe the highest rank in the hierarchy of the sciences. Moreover, insofar as its object was the soul united to, and interacting with the body, and to the extent that human beings were defined precisely by such a union and "commerce", psychology became the crucial anthropological science, on which all other branches of the "science of man" were said to depend. Finally, the development during the Aufklärung of a historical discourse about empirical psychology reveals the self-consciousness attained within the emerging field by the end of the eighteenth century. Weder ist das achtzehnte Jahrhundert für die Geschichte der Psychologie ein Schwerpunkt der Forschung, noch ist die Geschichte der Psychologie ein Hauptthema der Arbeiten über die Aufklärung. Trotzdem wurde diese Ära doch lange Zeit als das qualifiziert, was ein Textbuch der modernen Philosophie als "das Jahrhundert der Psychologie" bezeichnet. Der vorliegende Beitrag untersucht dieses historiographische Paradoxon, und fragt, inwiefern das achtzehnte Jahrhundert die Bezeichnung "Jahrhundert der Psychologie" verdient.Für den "allgemeinen" Historiker der Aufklärung genauso wie für die Historiker der Logik, der Ästhetik, der Moralphilosophie oder der Erziehung rechtfertigt sich die Bezeichnung aus der Psychologisierung, die diese und andere Gebiete erfahren haben. Der Historiker, der sich mit den Geisteswissenschaften beschäftigt, kann ihr ebenfalls zustimmen, da die empirische Psychologie, insbesondere in Deutschland, während des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts ein eigenständiges Feld auf dem Gebiet der akademischen Forschung wurde.Die Psychologie, sei es nun unter diesem oder einem anderen Namen, erreichte in der Hierarchie der Wissenschaften in ganz Europa den höchsten Rang. Darüber hinaus wurde sie zu einer kritischen anthropologischen Wissenschaft, von der gesagt wurde, daß alle anderen "Humanwissenschaften" auf ihr beruhen. Denn ihr Gegenstand war die mit dem Körper eine Einheit bildende und mit ihm zusammen agierende Seele, und in dem Umfang, in dem die Menschen präzise durch diese Einheit und durch das "commercium" beschrieben wurden. Letztendlich spiegelt die Entwicklung eines historischen Diskurses über die empirische Psychologie während der Aufklärung das Selbstbewußtsein wieder, das innerhalb dieses aufstrebenden Bereichs gegen Ende des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts erlangt wurde

The name of the Genevan critic Jean Starobinski will most likely evoke masterful\nreadings of Rousseau and Montaigne, or insightful reconstructions of the world\nof the Enlightenment. With the possible exception of the history of melancholy,\nmuch more rarely will it be associated with the history of psychology and\npsychiatry. A small number of the critic’s contributions to this field have\nappeared in some of his books. Most of them, however, remain scattered, and\nnothing suggests that they are known as widely as they deserve.\nStarobinski’s work in the history of psychology, psychiatry and psychoanalysis\nis exemplary in its perspective of the problematic relations between\npsychological concepts and experiences, and between medical thought and the\nlarger culture

From the classic Frankenstein of 1931 to Matrix, which offers a version of the philosophical fable of the brain in a vat and on to Self/less, in which the consciousness of a dying tycoon is transferred to a younger man’s body, cinema has variously explored the relationship between personhood and the body by means of fictions concerning the brain and its contents.1 From the crude disembodied brains of 1950s B-movies to the neuroimaging visuals of 21st-century cyberpunk, these films localize individuality essentially in the brain, and make personal identity transcend the body’s demise by transplanting the brain into other, typically younger or at least healthier bodies....

L’histoire de la psychologie en tant que discipline autonome comporte non seulement des développements méthodologiques et institutionnels, mais aussi l’élaboration du concept même de psychologie et des représentations de sa place dans l’ordre des sciences. Si de telles représentations ne détenninent pas la constitution du champ professionnel ou la pratique concrète du psychologue, elles n’en expriment pas moins des idéaux épistémologiques et reflètent les changements qui s’opèrent au sein de la discipline. Nous donnerons d’abord une vue générale de la position de la psychologie au XVIIe et au VXIIIe siècle, puis nous esquisserons l’histoire de sa place dans l’ordre des sciences de Destutt de Tracy à Jean Piaget. Après avoir été la science des sciences des classifications hiérarchiques, la psychologie s’intègre aux autres sciences dans des schémas moins linéaires, voire circulaires, sans pour autant toujours perdre la prééminence gnoséologique et pédagogique que lui attribuèrent en premier les « psychologues » du XVIIIe siècle.

In 1913, the future psychologist and epistemologist Jean Piaget (1896-1980), then a seventeen-year-old naturalist, gave a talk criticizing 'the notion of the species according to the Mendelian school'. In it, he confounded Mendelism and mutationism, and misunderstood both. He attributed an environmental nature to the 'factors' postulated by Mendel's laws for inherited characteristics, and thought that mutations resulted from the appearance of a new environmental factor. Such misinterpretations are closely related to Piaget's assimilation of the Bergsonian critique of 'mechanistic' science into his work in malacological taxonomy

There is no systematic knowledge about how individuals with Locked-in Syndrome experience their situation. A phenomenology of LIS, in the sense of a description of subjective experience as lived by the ill persons themselves, does not yet exist as an organized endeavor. The present article takes a step in that direction by reviewing various materials and making some suggestions. First-person narratives provide the most important sources, but very few have been discussed. LIS barely appears in bioethics and neuroethics. Research on Quality of Life provides relevant information, one questionnaire study explores the sense of personal continuity in LIS patients, and LIS has been used as a test case of theories in “embodied cognition” and to explore issues in the phenomenology of illness and communication. A systematic phenomenology of LIS would draw on these different areas: while some deal directly with subjective experience, others throw light on its psychological, sociocultural and materials conditions. Such an undertaking can contribute to the improvement of care and QOL, and help inform philosophical questions, such as those concerning the properties that define persons, the conditions of their identity and continuity, or the dynamics of embodiment and intersubjectivity.

Jean Piaget, connu comme créateur d'une théorie du développement de l'intelligence chez l'enfant, fut un naturaliste précoce. En 1912, à l'âge de seize ans, il prononça une conférence sur « La vanité de la nomenclature » dans le cadre des activités d'un club de jeunes naturalistes; le manuscrit de cette conférence a été retrouvé récemment. L'introduction à la présente édition du manuscrit essaie de montrer l'importance de ce dernier pour une biographie historique de Piaget. D'une part, « La vanité » est à la fois l'expression la plus synthétique de l'intégration de son auteur au champ de l'histoire naturelle, et le premier signal de sa réorientation vers la biologie philosophique qui jouerait un rôle crucial dans son oeuvre ultérieure. D'autre part, le texte du jeune Piaget illustre la persistance du nominalisme dans la problématique post-darwinienne de l'espèce, et certaines relations entre cette problématique et la philosophie de Henri Bergson. Long before becoming the well-known creator of a theory of the development of intelligence in children, Jean Piaget was a naturalist. In 1912, at the age of sixteen, and as member of a young naturalists' club, he gave a talk called « The Vanity of Nomenclature », the manuscript of which was recently discovered. The introduction to the present edition of that manuscript aims at suggesting its significance for a historical biography of Piaget. On the one hand, Piaget's text is the best exponent of his integration into the field of natural history; however, it is also the first sign of his reorientation towards the philosophical biology that would play a fundamental role in his later work. On the other hand, « The Vanity » illustrates the persistence of nominalism in post-Darwinian thinking about the species, and reveals certain relations between Henry Bergson's philosophy and the history of biology.

Если личность (personhood) 1 -это качество или состояние, позволяющее быть отдельным лицом, то церебральностью (brainhood) можно назвать качество или состояние, позволяющее быть мозгом. Через это онтоло гическое качество определяется «церебральный субъект», получивший, по крайней мере, в индустриально развитых и высокомедикализирован-ных обществах, множество социальных описаний начиная с середины ХХ века. В статье исследуется историческое развитие церебральности. Предлагается рассмотреть мозг как необходимую область локализации «современного Я», и, следовательно, церебральный субъект - как антропологический тип современности (хотя бы потому, что современность придает высшую ценность человеку как автономному агенту выбора и инициативы). Также утверждается, что идеология церебральности стала причиной возникновения множества нейроисследований, а не их следствием; показано, как разрастающийся комплекс нейрокультурных дискурсов и практик воплощает и поддерживает эту идеологию.