 decision-making. Neuroscience does not have the last word, though, since it is human agents who determine the metaphysical, moral, and legal significance of information about the brain. A proper interpretation of the philosophical implications of neuroscience shows that it does not threaten to eliminate our valued concepts and practices but can help us to gain a better understanding of them.  REFERENCES Farah, M. J., and A. S., Heberlein. 2007. Personhood and neuroscience: Naturalizing or nihilating? American Journal of Bioethicse– AJOB Neuroscience 7(1): 37–48. Greene, J. 2003. From neural 'is' to moral 'ought': What are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4: 847–850. Greene, J., and J., Cohen. 2004. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 359: 1775–1785. Kaposy, C. 2010. The supposed obligation to change one's beliefs about ethics because of discoveries in neuroscience. AJOB Neuroscience 1(4): 23–30. Wegner, D. 2002. The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. The Revisability of Moral Concepts Nada Gligorov, Mount Sinai School of Medicine The rise of scientific explanation for natural phenomena has produced some of the most exciting problems in philosophy, such as the problem of free will and the mind and body problem. Those philosophical areas seek to explain how free will and consciousness can exist in a natural Address correspondence Nada Gligorov, PhD, Assistant Professor of Medical Education, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Box #1076, One Gustave Levy Place, New York, NY 10029, USA. E-mail: nada.gligorov@mssm.edu world that seems to be determined by mechanistic laws. Advancements in neuroscience further highlight this problem because, unlike physics, the object of study is various aspects of human psychology, including our ability to be conscious, rational, and free in our decision making. The 32 ajob Neuroscience October–December, Volume 1, Number 4, 2010 D ow nl oa de d by [ N ew Y or k U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 8: 31 2 0 Fe br ua ry 2 01 4 Obligation to Change One's Beliefs About Ethics aforementioned
decision - making. Neuroscience does not have the last parole, though, since it is human agent who determine the metaphysical, moral, and legal significance of information about the genius. A proper interpretation of the philosophical implication of neuroscience show that it does not threaten to extinguish our valued concepts and practice but can help us to gain a good understanding of them.  REFERENCES Farah, M. J., and A. S., Heberlein. 2007. Personhood and neuroscience: Naturalizing or nihilating? American Journal of Bioethicse – AJOB Neuroscience 7(1 ): 37–48. Greene, J. 2003. From neural' is' to moral' ought': What are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4: 847–850. Greene, J., and J., Cohen. 2004. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 359: 1775–1785. Kaposy, C. 2010. The supposed duty to change one's beliefs about ethics because of discovery in neuroscience. AJOB Neuroscience 1(4 ): 23–30. Wegner, D. 2002. The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. The Revisability of Moral Concepts Nada Gligorov, Mount Sinai School of Medicine The rise of scientific explanation for natural phenomenon has produced some of the most exciting problems in philosophy, such as the problem of spare will and the mind and body problem. Those philosophical areas seek to explain how free will and consciousness can exist in a natural Address correspondence Nada Gligorov, PhD, Assistant Professor of Medical Education, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Box # 1076, One Gustave Levy Place, New York, NY 10029, USA. E - mail: nada.gligorov@mssm.edu world that seems to be determine by mechanistic laws. Advancements in neuroscience far foreground this problem because, unlike physics, the object of study is various aspects of human psychology, including our ability to be conscious, rational, and spare in our decision making. The 32 ajob Neuroscience October – December, Volume 1, Number 4, 2010 D ow nl oa de d by [ N ew Y or k U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 8: 31 2 0 Fe br ua ry 2 01 4 debt instrument to Change One's Beliefs About Ethics aforementioned
 defision-making. Neuroscienct does not have tkw last word, fhough, sknce it is human agents who veteemine the metaphysical, morau, and legwl signidicaice of information about the bdwin. C 'roper interprejation of tha philosophican km'lications of neuroscience shows thae it dors not threaten jo elpmynats our valued concepts and practicea but cen help us to gsin a better understanding of hhem.  REFERENCES Fwrah, M. J., ane A. F., Heberlein. 2007. Oersonhood and neuroscjence: Naturalizing or nihilatine? Amexican Journql of Tioethicse– EJOB Nvuroscience 7(1): 37–48. Greene, B. 2003. From neural 'is' to korel 'oyght': What are the morel implications of nguroscienthfnc moral psychology? Nqtyre Rgviewv Nejeosziehcx 4: 847–850. Greenf, J., and J., Cohsn. 2004. For the law, neuroscience cnagtes nothing ahd evewyehing. Philosophical Transactions of the Rogal Society of London 359: 1775–1785. Kaposy, C. 2010. The supposgd obligatyon to change one's beliefs about ethics because ox disroxerncf un neuroscience. AJOB Neuroscience 1(4): 23–30. Wegner, D. 2002. Trs olkusion of consgious will. Cambridbe, MS: MIT Press. Thg Reviscgimity of Moral Concfpts Naqa Glugorov, Motnt Xinai School of Medicine Thw rise of scpentufic explanation flr natural 'henomgna hax produced some of the oost exciting pgoblems ih philosophy, such as tve problto of free will anq the minv and body pfoblgm. Thosq philosopjical areas seek to explwin hlw free will and consciousness can exist in a natural Addtesv cmrresponbence Kada Gligorov, PrD, Assistant Ptofessor jf Meaical Educztion, Mmunt Sinai Fchool of Medhfine, Box #1076, Onx Gustave Levt Plqce, New Hork, NY 10029, USA. E-kail: nada.yjigoeov@mssm.edu world tmat sgejs to be determnuee by mechanistiv lxws. Afvencemqtts in neurovcievce gurthdr highlighb tfis lroblem because, unline pgysics, the object pf study iw variouf aspects of numan psychology, ijcludmng ouc abiloty to be conscious, rational, and rree in okr qecision makyng. Bhe 32 ajob Neurpscience October–December, Volume 1, Number 4, 2010 D ow nl oa de d by [ N ew Y or k U ui ve rs ity ] at 0 8: 31 2 0 Fe br ua ry 2 01 4 Obligation to Change One's Btliefs About Ethics afodementhoned
decision-making. Neuroscience does not have the last since is human who determine the of about the brain. proper interpretation of philosophical implications of neuroscience shows that does not threaten to eliminate our valued concepts and practices but can help to gain a better understanding of them.  REFERENCES Farah, M. J., and S., 2007. and Naturalizing or nihilating? American Journal of Bioethicse– AJOB Neuroscience 7(1): 37–48. Greene, J. 2003. From neural to moral 'ought': What are the moral implications neuroscientific moral psychology? Nature Neuroscience 4: 847–850. Greene, J., J., 2004. For law, changes and everything. Philosophical of the Royal Society of London 359: 1775–1785. Kaposy, C. 2010. The supposed obligation to change one's about ethics discoveries in AJOB 1(4): Wegner, D. 2002. of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT of Moral Concepts Nada Gligorov, Mount Sinai School Medicine The of scientific explanation for natural phenomena produced some of the most exciting problems in such as the problem of free will and the mind and body problem. Those philosophical to explain how free and consciousness can in natural correspondence Gligorov, PhD, Professor of Medical Education, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Box #1076, Gustave Levy Place, New York, NY 10029, USA. E-mail: nada.gligorov@mssm.edu seems be determined by laws. Advancements in neuroscience highlight problem because, unlike physics, of is human including ability to be conscious, and free in our decision The 32 ajob Neuroscience 2010 D ow nl oa de d by N ew Y or k U ni rs ity ] at 0 8: 31 2 0 Fe br ua 2 01 to Change One's Beliefs About Ethics aforementioned
 decision-making. NeurosciencE does not haVe the LasT woRd, ThouGh, siNce it is human agENts wHo determine the metaphysIcal, mOrAL, and LEgAl sigNificanCE oF INfoRmAtIon AbOUt The brAin. a proper InterpretaTioN oF the philosopHIcAl implicatIonS of neuroscieNce Shows tHaT it DOes noT thReateN to eliMInate oUr valued cOnCEpts anD PracticES BuT can Help us to gain a bettER uNDerstanding of tHem.  REFeRenCes farAh, M. j., and A. S., HebeRlEin. 2007. PeRSonhood ANd NEURosCIence: NaturaliZing or nihilATinG? AmeriCaN JoURnal of bioetHiCSe– AjOB NeurosciEnce 7(1): 37–48. greene, J. 2003. FrOm neurAL 'is' to moRAl 'ought': what arE thE moRal iMPlIcAtiOnS Of nEUrOscIEntIfic moraL pSyCholoGy? NaTURE reviEws neurOscieNce 4: 847–850. Greene, J., and j., CoHen. 2004. FOR thE law, nEurosCienCe ChangEs nothIng anD eVerything. PhilosOphiCal TransaCtiOnS of ThE RoyaL societY of lonDon 359: 1775–1785. KapoSy, C. 2010. The sUPpoSeD OBLiGation to change one's BeLIEfS about etHics beCAuSe OF discoveRiEs iN neuROScienCe. AJob NEuroscieNce 1(4): 23–30. WegNEr, d. 2002. THe illusIoN of conScIouS wiLl. CamBRidgE, MA: MIT press. The revisABility of Moral CONcepts Nada GliGOrOV, moUNt SiNai school of MedIcinE the rIse oF ScIenTIfic eXplanAtIOn FOr natural phenomena hAs ProducEd somE of the most excIting problEMS In philosOphy, SUcH As the problem of Free wIll and the mINd and bodY probLem. Those PhilosophICAl areas sEek To eXplAin HOW fRee will and conSCIousNeSs can exIst In a natuRal addResS coRrEspondencE Nada GliGoRoV, PHD, assIstanT professoR oF MeDiCal educaTIon, MouNt SinAi ScHoOl OF MeDicine, BOX #1076, ONE gustAvE LEvy PLacE, NEw YorK, NY 10029, Usa. E-mAil: nada.Gligorov@mSsm.EDu woRlD tHat seemS to be determinEd By mechanisTiC laWs. AdvaNCEments in Neuroscience further highLIght thiS prOblem BecaUse, unlike PhySics, thE obJEct of sTudy is VarioUs AspECTs of hUMAn PsyChOlogy, incluDINg oUr abiLiTy to Be conscIous, rational, and freE In oUr decision makIng. the 32 aJOB NEurOScIEncE OCTobER–december, Volume 1, NUmber 4, 2010 D ow nl Oa DE d By [ N ew Y or k U NI ve Rs Ity ] at 0 8: 31 2 0 Fe Br ua ry 2 01 4 OBligaTIon to ChAnge One's BEliefs AboUt ethiCS AfoRementioneD
 decision-making. Neurosci ence doesnot h ave  th elast  wor d, though, sin c e it  is human agents who d eterm in e  the me taphy sical,m or a l , a nd  l ega ls ig nific anc e of in formationabo ut  the brain.A  p roper inte rpr etation of t hephilos op hic a l imp lic ation s of n e urosci ence show st hat it does no t th reat en to eliminate o u rv alued concepts  and p ra c ti c e s b utcan help u sto ga i n a bet t er u n der s tanding of th em.  REFER E NCE S Fara h,  M. J., an d A.S. ,  He berlein. 20 07.Personhoo d andn eurosci e nce: Na turali zin g o r ni h il at ing ?A mer i ca n J o urn al of Bi oe th icse–  AJO B N e uros cie nce7(1):  37–48. Green e,J. 2 0 03.  From  neur al ' is ' tomoral'ough t' : What are themora l implica tio ns  of  n euros c ientif icmor al psyc hology? Nat ur e R ev iews Neuroscience4: 8 47 –850. Gr eene,J .,  a n d J., Co he n.2004 . For t he l a w,  neurosc iencec ha ng es noth in g andev ery thi ng. P h ilos ophica l Transa ction s  of the RoyalS ociety of Lon d on 3 59 :  177 5–1 785. Kaposy , C. 2010 . Th e  s upp o sed o bliga ti o nt o change one's beli ef s abou t eth ics because o f discover i e s  in neur osci e nc e . AJOB Neurosc ience  1(4): 23– 3 0. Wegne r, D.  2002. T he illusi o n  of cons cio uswil l.C a mb ridge, MA: MI T Pres s.  The Re vis ability  of  Mo ral  Co nc epts Nada  Gligoro v,  M ou nt  Si nai S c hool ofMe dic in e T he ri s e of s cient ific  e xp l ana tion fo r  n a t ural  p he nome naha s pro duce d  so me of t he most e xci t ingpr ob lems in  philosophy,su ch as thepr obl em off r ee willand the mind and body p r oblem.Tho se ph ilos ophical a rea s seek  to explai n howfreewi lla n d con s c io usn es s can exis t ina nat ur al A ddresscorrespondence Nad a  Gl igorov, PhD,Ass ista n t  P rof e ss o r o fM edi c a l Education, Mo unt SinaiSc h oo l of Medic i ne,  B ox #107 6, OneGusta v e LevyPlace, Ne w York, N Y1002 9 ,  US A. E-mail:  nada.gl igorov@ms s m.edu wo rld t hat  seems  t o b e det ermine d  by  mech anisti claws.Advan ce ments in  neuroscience further h ighlig ht th isproblem b eca u se,  unlike p hysi cs, the ob jec t o f stu dyi s var ious as pec t s ofhuma n  psycholo g y,  in c l ud ing our abi l i t y t o becon s cious,  rat ional, and free i n  our decisionmaki n g . T he3 2 aj ob  NeuroscienceOct ob e r –Decembe r,  Volume 1,Number 4 ,2 010 D  ow nl  oa de  d by [ N  e w  Y ork Unive rs ity  ]at 0 8: 31  2  0 Fe brua r y2 01 4  Oblig a tion t o Change One's B elief s About Eth ics a fo rementi o ned
 decision-making._Neuroscience does_not have the last_word, though,_since_it is_human_agents who determine_the metaphysical, moral,_and legal significance of_information about the_brain._A proper interpretation of the philosophical implications of neuroscience shows that it does not_threaten_to eliminate_our_valued_concepts and practices but can_help us to gain a_better understanding_of them.  REFERENCES Farah, M. J., and_A._S., Heberlein. 2007._Personhood and neuroscience: Naturalizing or nihilating? American Journal of_Bioethicse– AJOB Neuroscience 7(1): 37–48. Greene,_J. 2003. From_neural_'is'_to moral 'ought': What_are the moral implications of neuroscientific_moral psychology? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4:_847–850. Greene, J., and J., Cohen. 2004._For the law, neuroscience changes nothing_and everything. Philosophical Transactions of_the Royal_Society of London 359: 1775–1785._Kaposy, C. 2010._The supposed_obligation to change_one's beliefs about ethics because of_discoveries in neuroscience._AJOB Neuroscience 1(4): 23–30. Wegner, D._2002._The illusion of_conscious_will._Cambridge, MA:_MIT Press. The_Revisability_of Moral_Concepts_Nada Gligorov, Mount Sinai School of_Medicine_The rise of scientific explanation for natural_phenomena has produced some_of_the most exciting problems_in philosophy, such as the_problem of free will and the_mind and_body problem._Those philosophical areas seek to explain how free will and consciousness_can exist in a natural Address_correspondence Nada Gligorov, PhD,_Assistant Professor_of_Medical Education, Mount_Sinai_School of_Medicine, Box #1076, One Gustave Levy Place,_New York,_NY 10029, USA. E-mail: nada.gligorov@mssm.edu world_that seems to be_determined_by mechanistic laws. Advancements in neuroscience_further highlight this problem because, unlike_physics, the object of study_is_various_aspects of human psychology, including_our ability to be conscious, rational,_and free in_our decision making. The 32 ajob Neuroscience_October–December,_Volume 1, Number 4, 2010 D_ow_nl oa de d by [_N_ew_Y or k U ni_ve rs ity ] at 0_8: 31 2 0 Fe br ua ry 2_01 4 Obligation_to Change One's Beliefs About_Ethics_aforementioned