{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028700906344410877, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01812688821752266, 'mean_word_length': 5.314285714285714, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Neuroconcerns: Some Responses to My Critics

Neuroscience has its limits. Perhaps oxytocin can diminish neuroskepticism. But no psychoactive drug or neurotechnological innovation can enable me to engage meaningfully in around a thousand words with more than a dozen commentaries—embracing the work of Foucault (Thomsen 2010) and Spinoza (Bentwich 2010), in addition to the latest scholarship in neuroscience and neuroethics, some of which appeared after my article was submitted for publication (e.g., Illes et al. 2010). Although my responses are shaped by these thoughtful commentaries, the latter raise many important points to which I cannot do justice here.