It is widely accepted in science that the universe is a closed deterministic system in which everything can, ultimately, be explained by purely physical...

Review of Larry Arnhart, ‘Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature’, plus response from Larry Arnhart.

Review of 'Consciousness and Emotion', edited by Ralph D. Ellis and Natika Newton, John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Conference report: ‘Towards a Science of Consciousness 1998: Tucson III, held at the Tucson Convention Center and Music Hall, Tucson AZ, 27 April-2 May, 1998.

Most readers will be acquainted with the principal interest of the evolutionary psychologist Nicholas Humphrey via his modestly titled essay 'How to solve the mind-body problem', reprinted in this collection. The article was originally published in JCS , with peer commentary . But, in addition to his popular science books, Humphrey has also written scholarly essays on the more technical aspects of evolutionary theory along with journalistic articles on religion, politics, history, folk psychology and the supernatural. The book under review (...) attempts the difficult task of bringing these differing topics and styles together in one volume. It would be folly to attempt to cover such a broad collection comprehensively, so I will attempt to focus on those aspects most relevant to the aims and scope of this journal. Nicholas Humphrey, The Mind Made Flesh: Essays from the Frontiers of Psychology and Evolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, ?11.99, ISBN 0-19-280227-5. (shrink)

In Federalist 10 James Madison drew a functional distinction between “parties” (advocates for factional interests) and “judgment” (decision-making for the public good) and warned of the corrupting effect of combining both functions in a “single body of men.” This paper argues that one way of overcoming “Madisonian corruption” would be by restricting political parties to an advocacy role, reserving the judgment function to an allotted (randomly-selected) microcosm of the whole citizenry, who would determine the outcome of parliamentary debates by secret (...) ballot—a division of labour suggested by James Fishkin’s experiments in deliberative polling. The paper then defends this radical constitutional proposal against Bernard Manin’s (1997) claim that an allotted microcosm could not possibly fulfil the “consent” requirement of Natural Right theory. Not only does the proposal challenge Manin’s thesis, but a 28 th Amendment implementing it would finally reconcile the competing visions that have bedevilled representative democracy since the Constitutional Convention of 1787. (shrink)

Review article, based on ‘Brain Story’, by Susan Greenfield.