I ran across this recently positing "Neuro-capitalism" as a new stage of capitialism.

http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2009-11-24-jokeit-en.html

A point of clarification, any interest in for example free will is probly from neuroscientists, who may or not be medical doctors.

Clinical neuologists do tend toward being more mechanic like.

But the reseachers get pretty wild. For example some have posited that consciousness is a quantum mechanics process.

I don't pretend to understand this, but just for fun:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/quantumcomputation.html

This is not some nut job. People take him seriously.

The main issue with these ideas coming from science is that they are potetially verifiable and repeatable. magine, scietifically verafiable philosophy!

Thanks for the compliment about the depth of my knowledge about this. I assure you, it's completely misplaced.

As this stuff begins to enterthe popular awareness, global warming will look like a field with overwhelming consensus.

I have seen some on the left try to incorporate some of the research into their thinking, but not really on the right.

"My brain made me do it!" defense already has a substantial foothold in the justice system.

The practical ramifications of all this go to the very basis of eg our legal system.

http://kolber.typepad.com/ethics_law_blog/ is a start in understanding this emerging field.

The existence of free will is a hot topic now in neuroscience. I think more properly, it is a matter of comming to a coherent definition.

In any event, neuroscience, while still in its infancy, is sufficiently advanced to have pretty much eliminated the need for the ghost in the machine.

So the focus has shifted to describing the existence, or nature (depending on one's inclinations) of consciousness.

The thing is, mere reductionism doesn't make any more sense than the idea of a changeless, eternal soul. So some have taken to talking about the embodied or encultured brain to convey the dynamic web in which our consciousnesses are embedded.

History is an artifact of consciousness.

If, against the emerging evidence, we see consciousness itself as a thing in some neo-platonic sense, then we will naturally reify the components of history. That is the norm.

To see consciousness, and therefore history as a "becomingness", presents more interesting possibilities.

I just needed to get that off my chest.