Neuroscientists have recently begun to explore topics, such as the nature of the self, that were previously considered problems for philosophy rather than for science. This article aims to provide a starting point for interdisciplinary exchange by reviewing three philosophical debates about the nature of the self in light of contemporary work in cognitive neuroscience. Continental rationalist and British empiricist approaches to the unity of the self are discussed in relation to earlier work on split-brain patients, and to more recent work on "mental time travel" and the default mode network; the phenomenological movement, and the central concept of intentionality, are discussed in relation to interoceptive accounts of emotion and to the mirror neuron system; and ongoing philosophical debates about agency and autonomy are discussed in relation to recent work on action awareness and on insight in clinical populations such as addicts and patients with frontotemporal dementia.

The word I choose to base my game off of was deer. In the story, a magical deer leads you to fantasy area where you have to navigate and hopefully escape back to the real world. When I was revising my game some of the suggestions I kept in mind were about the linearity of the game (lack of diverse endings/paths), uninteresting dead ends and some unclear links. By dropping most of the action links to the bottom of the page I was able to make options a bit more clear to the players. In order to address the linearity and dead end problems, I added a lot more content while trying to cut unnecessary paths in my game. The feeling I was trying to achieve with this game was a feeling of fantastical exploration. By making a somewhat "open world" that you could explore, players could try and complete the game as fast as they can or they could take your time and find some more rewarding and interesting endings (such as exploring the stream, finding a key, and using the key for an ending). Although making a "open world" in a text based format is difficult I added a lot of description to the text to help the immersion.

The equipoise requirement in clinical research demands that, if patients are to be randomly assigned to one of two interventions in a clinical trial, there must be genuine doubt about which is better. This reflects the traditional view that physicians must never knowingly compromise the care of their patients, even for the sake of future patients. Equipoise has proven to be deeply problematic, especially in the Third World. Some recent critics have argued against equipoise on the grounds that clinical research is fundamentally distinct from clinical care, and thus should be governed by different norms. I argue against this "difference position," and instead take issue with the traditional, exclusively patient-centered account of physicians' obligations that equipoise presupposes. In place of this traditional view, I propose a Kantian test for the reasonable partiality that physicians should show their patients, focusing on its application in clinical research and medical education.

Recent disputes over the NIH Neuroethics Roadmap have revealed underlying tensions between neuroethics and the broader neuroscience community. These controversies should spur neuroethicists to more clearly articulate an oft-cited ideal of "integrating" neuroethics in neuroscience. In this, it is useful to consider the integration of bioethics in medical practice as both historical precedent and context for integration in neuroethics. Bioethics began as interdisciplinary scholars joined biomedical institutions to serve on newly-created IRBs and hospital ethics committees. These early bioethicists identified as outsiders and their presence was initially resisted by some in the medical establishment, but over time they became integrated into the very institutions that many had originally come to critique. This work has transformed medical practice, but also required compromises and intellectual costs. Also, the successful integration of bioethics relied in part on structural features of postwar medicine with no clear analogue in contemporary neuroscience; for neuroethics, imaginative new approaches will also be needed. While neuroethics to date has focused somewhat narrowly on questions in neurotechnology, I argue that successful integration in neuroethics will likely require a broader vision, encompassing the clinical neurosciences as well as questions at the interface of neuroscience and society.