Jorge Ignacio Fuentes

I argue that there are different orders of mechanisms with different constitutive relevance and individuation conditions. In common first-order mechanistic explanations, constitutive relevance norms are captured by the matched-interlevel-experiments condition (Craver et al. 2021). Regarding individuation, we say that any two mechanisms are of the same type when they have the same concrete components performing the same activities in the same arrangement. By contrast, in higher-order mechanistic explanations, we formulate the decompositions in terms of generalized basic components (GBCs). These GBCs (e.g., logic gates) possess causal properties that are common to a set of physical systems. Mechanistic explanations formulated in terms of GBCs embody the epistemic value of horizontal integration, which aims to explain as many phenomena as possible with a minimal amount of abstract components (Wajnerman Paz, 2017a). Two higher-order mechanisms are of the same type when they share all the same GBCs, and they are organized as performing the same activities with the same interactions. I use this notion of mechanistic order to enhance the mechanistic account of computation (MAC) and provide an account of the epistemic norms of computational explanation and the nature of medium-independent functional properties and mechanisms. Finally, I use these new conceptual tools to address four criticisms of the MAC.

Some have advocated for creating new fundamental neurorigths with universal validity such that national legislations worldwide should adapt to enforce them. Others have brought into question such a movement warning against rights inflation. We argue that we should avoid introducing new fundamental rights in any legal framework whenever possible. We call this the situated approach since whether it is possible to protect the mind without introducing new rights is a question that should be asked in each legal framework separately. We show that in the case of Chile, that can be done, and we propose how. Specifically, we provide a critical assessment of local regulatory proposals and show that, as a result of the local legislative debate, they have evolved from a universalist stance towards a much more situated view. However, we suggest that in their current state, they still are insufficiently grounded in the Chilean legal system, which we regard as providing enough protection against neurotechnological harm in most relevant cases.

I defend a generalized developmentalist reading of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics by arguing that it allows for a promising solution to the problem of instrumentalism of practical wisdom regarding theoretical wisdom. This problem consists in that if we accept the instrumentalist premise, we must consider the Aristotelian text as inconsistent. I show shortcomings in the solutions proposed by intellectualists and inclusivists. I then characterize the model of personal development my interpretation ascribes to the Aristotelian text and provide textual evidence. The generalized developmentalist reading I defend constitutes a middle ground between intellectualism and inclusivism since it accepts weak intellectualism while maintaining that practical wisdom is as necessary as theoretical wisdom for eudaimonia. Moreover, practical wisdom has a genetic as opposed to an instrumental role. Finally, I give two arguments to show that instrumentalism is incompatible with the interpretation defended here and that the problem of instrumentalism poses no threat to it. Abstract: I defend a generalized developmentalist reading of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics by arguing that it allows for a promising solution to the problem of instrumentalism of practical wisdom regarding theoretical wisdom. This problem consists in that if we accept the instrumentalist premise, we must consider the Aristotelian text as inconsistent. I show shortcomings in the solutions proposed by intellectualists and inclusivists. I then characterize the model of personal development my interpretation ascribes to the Aristotelian text and provide textual evidence. The generalized developmentalist reading I propose constitutes a middle ground between intellectualism and inclusivism since it accepts weak intellectualism while maintaining that practical wisdom is as necessary as theoretical wisdom for eudaimonia. Moreover, practical wisdom has a genetic as opposed to an instrumental role. Finally, I give two arguments to show that instrumentalism is incompatible with the interpretation proposed here and that the problem of instrumentalism poses no threat to it. Resumen: Defiendo una lectura del desarrollo generalizada de la Ética a Nicómaco de Aristóteles argumentando que ella permite formular una solución promisoria al problema del instrumentalismo de la sabiduría práctica (φρόνησις) con respecto a la sabiduría teorética (σοφία). Este problema consiste en que, si aceptamos las premisas instrumentalistas, debemos evaluar al texto aristótelico como inconsistente. Muestro limitaciones en las soluciones propuestas tanto por intelectualistas como por inclusivistas. Luego caracterizo el modelo de desarrollo personal que mi interpretación adjudica al texto aristotélico y proveo evidencia textual para sostenerlo. La lectura del desarrollo generalizada que propongo constituye una aproximación intermedia entre el intelectualismo y el inclusivismo dado que acepta una versión débil de intelectualismo mientras mantiene que la sabiduría práctica es tan necesaria como la sabiduría teorética para alcanzar la eudaimonia. Más aún, la sabiduría práctica tiene un rol genético como opuesto a uno meramente instumental. Finalmente, proveo dos argumentos para mostrar que el instrumentalismo es incompatible con la interpretación que propongo aquí y que, por tanto, el problema del instrumentalismo no representa una amenaza para ella.

A distinguishing feature of neural computation and information processing is that it fits models that describe the most efficient strategies for performing different cognitive tasks. Efficiency determines a distinctive sense of teleology involving optimal performance and resource management through a specific strategy. I articulate this kind of teleology and call it efficient teleological function. I argue that efficient teleological function is compatible with mechanistic explanation and, most likely, neural computational mechanisms are efficiently functional in this sense. They are members of a distinctive class of computational mechanisms whose efficiency is intertwined with their functionality. This is illustrated by widely discussed approaches to mind, such as Barlow’s efficient coding hypothesis or the ones associated with the so-called “predictive mind”, which propose that the brain employs highly efficient coding strategies to save energy resources that are critical to the organism’s survival.

Recientemente, en la literatura sobre neuroética se ha analizado la integración entre neurotecnologías y ser humano desde la teoría de la mente extendida. La discusión se ha centrado en buscar dimensiones para evaluar la integración de los dispositivos en las funciones cognitivas de sus usuarios. Este enfoque ha tenido un relativo éxito en conceptualizar la paridad ética de los dispositivos respecto del cuerpo orgánico. Sin embargo, esta integración presenta al menos tres desafíos que no han sido abordados y requieren un nuevo marco conceptual. El primero, concierne a la distinción entre paciencia y agencia moral. El marco actual aborda solo el primero de estos aspectos. Los otros dos se desprenden en parte de este. El segundo, se relaciona con la distinción entre las dimensiones fenoménicas de los mencionados aspectos, esto es, el sentido de pertenencia corporal y el sentido de agencia. El foco en la paciencia moral descuida aspectos fenoménicos fundamentales de la integración con la neurotecnología. Finalmente, la posibilidad de que el dispositivo actúe coercitivamente sobre nuestros centros cognitivos constituye una forma de integración problemática que no puede abordarse adecuadamente desde los enfoques actuales. Proponemos que estos tres desafíos pueden ser estudiados explorando un nuevo abordaje sobre la identidad personal que enfatiza dichas dimensiones.

I argue that there are different orders of mechanisms with different constitutive relevance and individuation conditions. In common first-order mechanistic explanations, constitutive relevance norms are captured by the matched-interlevel-experiments condition (Craver et al. (2021) Synthese 199:8807–8828). Regarding individuation, we say that any two mechanisms are of the same type when they have the same concrete components performing the same activities in the same arrangement. By contrast, in higher-order mechanistic explanations, we formulate the decompositions in terms of generalized basic components (GBCs). These GBCs (e.g., logic gates) possess causal properties that are common to a set of physical systems. Mechanistic explanations formulated in terms of GBCs embody the epistemic value of horizontal integration, which aims to explain as many phenomena as possible with a minimal amount of abstract components (Wajnerman Paz (2017a) Philos Psychol 30:213–234). Two higher-order mechanisms are of the same type when they share all the same GBCs, and they are organized as performing the same activities with the same interactions. I use this notion of mechanistic order to enhance the mechanistic account of computation (MAC) and provide an account of the epistemic norms of computational explanation and the nature of medium-independent functional properties and mechanisms. Finally, I use these new conceptual tools to address four criticisms of the MAC.