Abstract (may include machine translation)
Abstract: I agree with Nachev and Hacker’s general approach. However, their criticism of claims of covert automaticity can be strengthened. I first say a few words on what voluntary action involves and on the consequent limited relevance of brain research for the determination of voluntariness. I then turn to Nachev and Hacker’s discussion of possible covert automaticity and show why the case for it is weaker than they allow.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 217-218 |
| Number of pages | 2 |
| Journal | Cognitive Neuroscience |
| Volume | 5 |
| DOIs |
|
| State | Published - 2 Oct 2014 |