![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Bluhm and Cabrera advance that Sadler’s ‘Archimedean point’ is an example of integration of sub-perspectives by an overall self, as such a self who may be reconciled and understood to be caused by DBS systems. Although this suggests great avenues to explore, we stress that the Archimedean viewpoint is strictly bound to a metaphorical domain. We argue that what is needed to help (prospective) DBS patients is not a metaphorical viewpoint, but a scientific viewpoint, rooted in empirical evidence.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the EthicsLab. Funding from the Gwen Nettlefold Memorial Fellowship and the Goddard Sapin-Jaloustre Scholarship are gratefully acknowledged.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Fredric Gilbert
Frederic Gilbert is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Gender Studies at the University of Tasmania. His research focuses on bio-ethics. By monitoring patients with brain devices, Dr Gilbert grapples with the ethical questions posed by invasive brain technologies. His research informs the debates that guide policy regulation, especially regarding human clinical and experimental trials.
Joel Smith
Joel Smith is a research assistant in the Department of Philosophy and Gender Studies at the University of Tasmania.