Performing an action the agent is so focused on his OWN first-person perspective that, in that instant, he is genuinely pervaded by a conviction that he freely decided the right action. If a bit later he were to be assailed by doubts about having made the wrong decision, this thought is already too late, i.e. doubting his own decision is already another story, thus belonging to another action. Akt inhibitor At best, the agent may rebuke himself for having missed an opportunity. We disagree with Libet (2004) who claims that since the subject’s decision is taken too early to be a conscious thought, there is still the opportunity to put a conscious

veto; first, because the probabilistic mind promoting the action is unconscious and cannot disagree with itself unless we consider the disagreement still part of the same “decisional” process. Second, the veto (actually,

a disapproval) could be conceived as a secondary action only after the subject has observed and evaluated the first action’s outcome. A good illustration of this is chensorship during reality TV shows in the US. The increasing demand for live television posed a problem for TV networks because of the potential for technical hitches AG-014699 price and inappropriate behaviour and language. The Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency of the United States government, introduced censorship by slightly delaying the broadcast of live programs; this few seconds’ delay is sufficient to suppress certain words and images, while keeping the broadcast as “live” as possible. In other words, we cannot put a veto in real time. The question is, if our actions are decided and executed by the UM who then is legally liable? Let us see, then, how TBM relates to Neuroethics. Neuroethics is a term which was coined in 2002 in the era of applied Non-specific serine/threonine protein kinase neurosciences; this discipline combined bioethics and the study of the effect

of neurosciences on ethics (Roskies, 2002). In this context, Gazzaniga argues that “personal responsibility is real” (Gazzaniga, 2011) because it is the product of social rules established by people and “is not to be found in the brain, any more than traffic can be understood by knowing about everything inside a car.” The accountability of ethical behaviour stands on binomials, such as cause and effect, action and consequence, etc., which belong to a universal architectural principle similar to other information-processing systems (for example, the Internet). Moral rules enable social relationships to be organised on the basis of stable, predictable behaviour in any context and time. Accountability of moral rules in social life provides the automatic brain with a self-protecting servo-mechanism, which may put a veto on decisions that may otherwise conflict with social rules.