Neuro-Legal Sciences from a Neo Contemporary and Futuristic Perspective



Abstract Views
254

Downloads
211

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Oct 4, 2022
Published Nov 4, 2022
10.24018/ejpolitics.2022.1.5.34

Abstract viewed = 254 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

This article is conducted according to a documentary theoretical investigation under a proposal that claims to have foundations of realistic orthodox scientific rigor because it is not a science fiction novel rather it is a realistic framework of what happens in the neo-contemporary progress to axioms Futurists that can be seen as retro-futuristic phenomena in terms of the applicability of the sciences of “complexity” as they call it today for the progress of neuro-legal sciences at an international and national level in any entity. This in order to see the scope before a critical point in the face of its infinitesimal axioms that collaborative fields of high scientific specialty can provide, of which are the experimental cognitive theoretical neurophysics in auxiliary support to the evolutionary and biophysically inspired computational cognitive neurosciences. Its primary scope is to recapitulate the greatest advances from a current perspective of the developments that the scientific community wants to achieve to support said theoretical application fields from which this documentary contribution can be based and a theoretical proposal of how these advances can reach their point evolution critic to his ultimate axiom of development.

Keywords: Evolution, Future, Neurojuridics, Neurolaw, Neurotechnology, Neurosciences.

References

  1. Aharoni, E., Vincent, G. M., Harenski, C. L., Calhoun, V. D., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Gazzaniga, M. S. & Kiehl, K. A. (2013). Neuroprediction of future rearrest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 6223–6228. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219302110.
     Google Scholar
  2. Biondi, F. & Skrypchuk, L. (2017). Use Your Brain (and Light) for Innovative Human-Machine Interfaces. SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-41956-5_10?error=cookies_not_supported&code=3cdf6d67-b4b5-402b-bf73-ff531821815f.
     Google Scholar
  3. Boires, R. (2000). Mind Matters. Journal of Cognitive Liberties, 4, 710.
     Google Scholar
  4. Brigham, K. & Kumar, B. V. K. V. (2010). Subject identification from electroencephalogram (EEG) signals during imagined speech. 2010 Fourth IEEE International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS). https://doi.org/10.1109/btas.2010.5634515.
     Google Scholar
  5. British Neuroscience Association Neurosciences. (2003). The Science of the Brain: An Introduction for Young Learners. Slide share. https://es.slideshare.net/alehlizarraga/neuggrociencias-15560160.
     Google Scholar
  6. Dick, P. (1999). The Minority Report. 2nd ed. J. Triptre Trad.
     Google Scholar
  7. Goodenough, O. R. & Tucker, M. (2010). Law and Cognitive Neuroscience. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6(1), 61–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131523.
     Google Scholar
  8. Habermas, J. (2010). THE CONCEPT OF HUMAN DIGNITY AND THE REALISTIC UTOPIA OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Metaphilosophy, 41(4), 464–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2010.01648.x.
     Google Scholar
  9. Herff, C., Heger, D., de Pesters, A., Telaar, D., Brunner, P., Schalk, G. & Schultz, T. (2015). Brain-to-text: decoding spoken phrases from phone representations in the brain. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00217.
     Google Scholar
  10. Human Rights | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2002). https://iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/
     Google Scholar
  11. Iacono, W. G. (2008). Accuracy of polygraph techniques: Problems using confessions to determine ground truth. Physiology & Behavior, 95(1-2), 24–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.06.001.
     Google Scholar
  12. Nickel, J. (1987). Making Sense of Human Rights. Google Books. https://books.google.com.mx/books/about/Making_Sense_of_Human_Rights.html?id=htOh-jXX6sIC.
     Google Scholar
  13. Nickel, J. (1999). Human Rights. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
     Google Scholar
  14. Rusconi, E. & Mitchener-Nissen, T. (2013). Prospects of functional magnetic resonance imaging as lie detector. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00594.
     Google Scholar
  15. Taruffo, M. & Nieva, J. (2010). Neuroscience and Judicial Process. https://www.marcialpons.es/media/pdf/9788415664901.pdf.
     Google Scholar