Beyond the Code: Phenomenology and Legal Status of Algorithmic Empathy between Neuroscience and Law

The code — we know, or pretend to know — is never neutral. But what happens, exactly, when it even stops being cold?
The assumption from which this work is based (which has its roots in the framework of Algorithmic Empathy, already outlined in Iura and Legal System, Vol. 12-3, 2025) deliberately shifts the center of gravity: the contemporary algorithm does not limit itself to computation; it simulates or, in a much more subtle way, induces an emotional resonance. The intent here is to attempt a break — methodological, even before merit — by forcing the psychological clinic to sit at the same table as the norm.
Because if psychological observation certifies, data in hand, the existence of a digital mirroring — the human user who projects, without filters, affections and fragility on synthetic architectures — legal science cannot limit itself to looking elsewhere. It must take charge, and quickly, of this cognitive vulnerability. It is no longer just a question of privacy or information asymmetry. It is a matter of empirically measuring the impact of an artificial "feeling" in order to be able to sew an unprecedented statute of responsibility on it: the transition to a complex, and very risky, emotional symmetry. The final goal is, perhaps, a necessary utopia: an integrated ethics in which the legal fence of the algorithm is dictated, upstream, by the same tools that map the cracks and boundaries of the human psyche.

Code,Phenomenology, Legal Status, Algorithmic Empathy, Neuroscience and Law

1. Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304267187 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2006). The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron, 50(4), 531–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Gallese, V. (2001). The "shared manifold" hypothesis: From mirror neurons to empathy. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(5–7), 33–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Gallese, V. (2003). The roots of empathy: The shared manifold hypothesis and the neural basis of intersubjectivity. Psychopathology, 36(4), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1159/000072786 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(95)00038-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04418.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R., & Frith, C. D. (2004). Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science, 303(5661), 1157–1162. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093535 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Barrett, L. F. (2017). How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Seth, A. K. (2013). Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(11), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Affective Computing (acoperă noua secțiune) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Calvo, R. A., & D'Mello, S. (2010). Affect Detection: An Interdisciplinary Review of Models, Methods, and Their Applications. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 1(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/T-AFFC.2010.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Cambria, E., Schuller, B., Xia, Y., & Havasi, C. (2013). New Avenues in Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 28(2), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2013.30 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Poria, S., Cambria, E., Bajpai, R., & Hussain, A. (2017). A Review of Affective Computing: From Unimodal Analysis to Multimodal Fusion. Information Fusion, 37, 98–125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Fiske, A., Henningsen, P., & Buyx, A. (2019). Your Robot Therapist Will See You Now: Ethical Implications of Embodied Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry, Psychology, and Psychotherapy. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(5), e13216. https://doi.org/10.2196/13216 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Ta, V., Griffith, C., Boatfield, C., Wang, X., Civitello, M., Bader, H., DeCero, E., & Loggarakis, A. (2020). User Experiences of Social Support from Companion Chatbots in Everyday Contexts. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW2), 1–24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Skjuve, M., Brandtzæg, P. B., Følstad, A., & Araujo, T. (2021). My Chatbot Companion – A Study of Human–Chatbot Relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 149, 102601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Brandtzaeg, P. B., Skjuve, M., & Dysthe, K. K. (2022). Too Good to Be True: Understanding Human–AI Relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 878278. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.878278 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Susser, D., Roessler, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (2019). Technology, Autonomy, and Manipulation. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1410 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Yeung, K. (2017). Hypernudge: Big Data as a Mode of Regulation by Design. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1186713 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (AI Act). Official Journal of the European Union. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(2), 131–141. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Gallese, V. (2001). The "shared manifold" hypothesis: From mirror neurons to empathy. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(5–7), 33–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), 81–96. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Barrett, L. F. (2017). How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Poria, S., Cambria, E., Bajpai, R., & Hussain, A. (2017). A Review of Affective Computing: From Unimodal Analysis to Multimodal Fusion. Information Fusion, 37, 98–125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Skjuve, M., Brandtzæg, P. B., Følstad, A., & Araujo, T. (2021). My Chatbot Companion – A Study of Human–Chatbot Relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 149, 102601. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Susser, D., Roessler, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (2019). Technology, Autonomy, and Manipulation. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.