Many welfarists wish to assign to each possible state of the world a numerical value that measures something like its moral goodness. How are we to determine this quantity? This paper proposes a contractualist approach: a legitimate measure of moral goodness is one that could be justified to each member of the population in question. How do we justify a measure of moral goodness to each individual? Each individual recognises the measure of moral goodness must be a compromise between the (...) different levels of well-being within the population. Some compromises are more reasonable than others; and some are better justifiable to a given member of the population than others. Each member recognises that the social chooser's measure of moral goodness is going to have to deviate from the well-being function of at least some of the members of the population. But we can nonetheless justify it to each of them if it doesn't deviate more than is necessary, and if the deviations from each member are given equal weighting in whatever process we use to determine it. This paper proposes that we begin with a measure of the distance from a proposed compromise to an individual's level of well-being, and then say that the moral goodness is the candidate compromise that minimizes the sum of distances from it to the individuals' levels of well-being. I describe a range of such measures of distance and show that some give utilitarianism, others different versions of prioritarianism. (shrink)

This work is the transcript of a theological dialogue I had with ChatGPT that spanned a couple of days. I began it merely out of curiosity over how ChatGPT might respond to questions and challenges I posed. As it progressed, I became increasingly impressed with the nuance, depth, and relevance of its responses. The dialogue became, for me, something of a contemplative exercise. I still don’t know quite how to understand the ability of generative A.I. to respond with such (apparent) (...) understanding and even insight. -/- I’ve decided to post this dialogue, not only because of the puzzle it poses concerning A.I, but even more, because I believe that the theological conclusions ‘we’ arrived at have real merit. -/- In the end, the theological views expressed here echo those that I’ve expressed in other works of mine, but the expression of these views are enhanced by the way ChatGPT picks up on them, rephrases them, elaborates upon them, and often places them in the context of the classical theological tradition. -/- I might add that I have been an A.I. skeptic for some time now, concerned over the potential dangers of A.I. in general. But this dialogue, anyway, reveals its potential use as a vehicle for reflection, even profound reflection. -/- . (shrink)

Investigation of neural and cognitive processes underlying individual variation in moral preferences is underway, with notable similarities emerging between moral- and risk-based decision-making. Here we specifically assessed moral distributive justice preferences and non-moral financial gambling preferences in the same individuals, and report an association between these seemingly disparate forms of decision-making. Moreover, we find this association between distributive justice and risky decision-making exists primarily when the latter is assessed with the Iowa Gambling Task. These findings are consistent with neuroimaging studies (...) of brain function during moral and risky decision-making. This research also constitutes the first replication of a novel experimental measure of distributive justice decision-making, for which individual variation in performance was found. Further examination of decision-making processes across different contexts may lead to an improved understanding of the factors affecting moral behaviour. (shrink)

We often learn the opinions of others without hearing the evidence on which they're based. The orthodox Bayesian response is to treat the reported opinion as evidence itself and update on it by conditionalizing. But sometimes this isn't feasible. In these situations, a simpler way of combining one's existing opinion with opinions reported by others would be useful, especially if it yields the same results as conditionalization. We will show that one method---upco, also known as multiplicative pooling---is specially suited to (...) this role when the opinions you wish to pool concern hypotheses about chances. The result has interesting consequences: it addresses the problem of disagreement between experts; and it sheds light on the social argument for the uniqueness thesis. (shrink)

Zunshine’s essay draws on recent research in developmental psychology and cognitive evolutionary anthropology to examine emotional responses to supernatural events by the child and adult characters of E. T. A. Hoffmann’s "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King" (1816), as well as to revisit the traditional literary critical view of those responses, according to which the tale’s main protagonist, the seven-year-old Marie, possesses a “Romantic imagination” (in contrast to her philistine parents). Zunshine demonstrates, first, that Marie’s stubborn insistence on the reality (...) of Nutcracker and the Mouse King is well in keeping with what developmental psychologists today would expect from children of her age group; and, second, that when Marie’s parents are called to comment on their daughter’s account of her magical adventures, their stodgy response is influenced by a very particular kind of social pressure under which they find themselves. While the essay’s primary goal is to emphasize the developmental and social aspects of the characters’ attitudes toward what is real, Zunshine also discusses the legitimacy of using recent research by cognitive scientists for examining the psychology and interpersonal dynamics of early nineteenth-century fictional characters. (shrink)

There are many reasons we might want to take the opinions of various individuals and pool them to give the opinions of the group they constitute. If all the individuals in the group have probabilistic opinions about the same propositions, there is a host of pooling functions we might deploy, such as linear or geometric pooling. However, there are also cases where different members of the group assign probabilities to different sets of propositions, which might overlap a lot, a little, (...) or not at all. There are far fewer proposals for how to proceed in these cases, and those there are have undesirable features. I begin by considering four proposals and arguing that they don't work. Then I'll describe my own proposal, which is intended to cover the situation in which we want to pool the individual opinions in order to ascribe an opinion to the group considered as an agent in its own right. (shrink)

I discuss a puzzle that arises as an apparent tension between plausible theories of good guessing and intuitive constraints on rational inquiry. Clearly, our best guess at a question should reflect the likelihoods we assign to its possible answers. Your best guess is the answer you judge most likely. Additionally, it seems like a requirement of rational inquiry that our guesses be coherent. Thus, our best guess to a constituent (wh-) questions should cohere with our best guess to a polar (...) (yes/no) question whenever answers to the former entail answers to the latter. I argue that these requirements are in conflict and that a familiar form of contextualism doesn’t resolve the issue. The puzzle stands as a challenge to existing accounts of rational inquiry and question directed attitudes like guessing. (shrink)

Philosophical questions about minds and computation need to focus squarely on the mathematical theory of Turing machines (TM's). Surrogate TM's such as computers or formal systems lack abilities that make Turing machines promising candidates for possessors of minds. Computers are only universal Turing machines (UTM's)—a conspicuous but unrepresentative subclass of TM. Formal systems are only static TM's, which do not receive inputs from external sources. The theory of TM computation clearly exposes the failings of two prominent critiques, Searle's Chinese room (...) (1980) and arguments from Gödel's Incompleteness theorems (e.g., Lucas, 1961; Penrose, 1989), both of which fall short of addressing the complete TM model. Both UTM-computers and formal systems provide an unsound basis for debate. In particular, their special natures easily foster the misconception that computation entails intrinsically meaningless symbol manipulation. This common view is incorrect with respect to full-fledged TM's, which can process inputs non-formally, i.e., in a subjective and dynamically evolving fashion. To avoid a distorted understanding of the theory of computation, philosophical judgments and discussions should be grounded firmly upon the complete Turing machine model, the proper model for real computers. (shrink)

La cobertura universal de salud está en el centro de la acción actual para fortalecer los sistemas de salud y mejorar el nivel y la distribución de la salud y los servicios de salud. Este documento es el informe fi nal del Grupo Consultivo de la OMS sobre la Equidad y Cobertura Universal de Salud. Aquí se abordan los temas clave de la justicia (fairness) y la equidad que surgen en el camino hacia la cobertura universal de salud. Por lo (...) tanto, el informe es pertinente para cada agente que infl uye en ese camino y en particular para los gobiernos, ya que se encargan de supervisar y guiar el progreso hacia la cobertura universal de salud. (shrink)

According to certain normative theories in epistemology, rationality requires us to be logically omniscient. Yet this prescription clashes with our ordinary judgments of rationality. How should we resolve this tension? In this paper, I focus particularly on the logical omniscience requirement in Bayesian epistemology. Building on a key insight by Hacking :311–325, 1967), I develop a version of Bayesianism that permits logical ignorance. This includes: an account of the synchronic norms that govern a logically ignorant individual at any given time; (...) an account of how we reduce our logical ignorance by learning logical facts and how we should update our credences in response to such evidence; and an account of when logical ignorance is irrational and when it isn’t. At the end, I explain why the requirement of logical omniscience remains true of ideal agents with no computational, processing, or storage limitations. (shrink)

This report from the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage offers advice on how to make progress fairly towards universal health coverage.

Freud, kendini Kopernik ve Darwin’in de dahil olduğu merkezsizleştirici düşünce hareketi içinde görmekteydi. Ünlü bir pasajında, psikanalizin, “egoya kendi evinin bile efendisi olmadığını, ancak aklında, bilinçten uzak bir biçimde olup bitenlerin kıt bilgisi ile yetinmesi gerektiğini kanıtlamaya çabaladığını” söyler. Kendimizin önemli olduğu hissi veya özdenetim duygumuz, gerçekten kendimize karşı şeffaf olduğumuz inancına mı dayanmaktadır? Bilinç dışının keşfi neden arzularımızın keşfine değersizlik eklemek zorundadır?Freud thought of himself as part of the same “decentering” movement of thought to which Copernicus and Darwin belonged. (...) In a famous passage, he says that psychoanalysis “seeks to prove to the ego that it is not even master in its own house, but must content itself with scanty information of what is going on unconsciously in its mind.” Does our sense of our importance, or our capacity for self-control, really depend on the belief that we are transparent to ourselves? Why should the discovery of the unconscious add humiliation to the discovery of the passions? (shrink)

Argumento neste artigo que embora existam muitas maneiras diferentes de descrever o mundo ou algum segmento dele, qualquer maneira que deixe de acarretar logicamente uma separabilidade do corpo e da alma como os dois componentes de cada ser humano conhecido (o corpo sendo uma parte contingente e a alma a parte essencial do homem) deixará de fornecer uma descriçáo completa do mundo. T ítulo original do artigo: “ What makes me me? A Defense os Substance Dualism ”. Apresentado no I (...) Seminário Internacional de Filosofia Analítica Contemporânea, realizado em Natal de 19 a 21 de novembro de 2007. Traduçáo provisória de Jaimir Conte.]. (shrink)

abstract: Richard T. Greener was the first Black graduate of Harvard College in 1870, and he served briefly as a professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina from 1873 to 1877. Historians and biographers have uncovered many of the facts of his unusual life, but to date his philosophy has remained unappreciated. This essay reconstructs his philosophy from published and archival sources, evaluating it in relationship to the work of his better-known mentor, Frederick Douglass. I argue that (...) Greener’s account of Reconstruction politics, especially his arguments on land redistribution, race, and Black intellectual history, possess notable advantages over Douglass’s views. Of particular importance is that he defended a more robust republican state than did his hero, while rejecting the originalism and constitutionalism that characterize Douglass’s liberalism. (shrink)

One goal of this paper is to argue that autobiographical memories are extended and distributed across embodied brains and environmental resources. This is important because such distributed memories play a constitutive role in our narrative identity. So, some of the building blocks of our narrative identity are not brain-bound but extended and distributed. Recognising the distributed nature of memory and narrative identity, invites us to find treatments and strategies focusing on the environment in which dementia patients are situated. A second (...) goal of this paper is to suggest various of such strategies, including lifelogging technologies such as SenseCams, life story books, multimedia biographies, memory boxes, ambient intelligence systems, and virtual reality applications. Such technologies allow dementia patients to remember their personal past in a way that wouldn’t be possible by merely relying on their biological memory, in that way aiding in preserving their narrative identity and positively contributing to their sense of well-being. (shrink)

Hartry Field has suggested that we should adopt at least a methodological deflationism: [W]e should assume full-fledged deflationism as a working hypothesis. That way, if full-fledged deflationism should turn out to be inadequate, we will at least have a clearer sense than we now have of just where it is that inflationist assumptions ... are needed. I argue here that we do not need to be methodological deflationists. More pre-cisely, I argue that we have no need for a disquotational truth-predicate; (...) that the word true, in ordinary language, is not a disquotational truth-predicate; and that it is not at all clear that it is even possible to introduce a disquotational truth-predicate into ordinary language. If so, then we have no clear sense how it is even possible to be a methodological deflationist. My goal here is not to convince a committed deflationist to abandon his or her position. My goal, rather, is to argue, contrary to what many seem to think, that reflection on the apparently trivial character of T-sentences should not incline us to deflationism. (shrink)

How should a machine intelligence perform unsupervised structure discovery over streams of sensory input? One approach to this problem is to cast it as an apperception task [1]. Here, the task is to construct an explicit interpretable theory that both explains the sensory sequence and also satisfies a set of unity conditions, designed to ensure that the constituents of the theory are connected in a relational structure. However, the original formulation of the apperception task had one fundamental limitation: it assumed (...) the raw sensory input had already been parsed using a set of discrete categories, so that all the system had to do was receive this already-digested symbolic input, and make sense of it. But what if we don't have access to pre-parsed input? What if our sensory sequence is raw unprocessed information? The central contribution of this paper is a neuro-symbolic framework for distilling interpretable theories out of streams of raw, unprocessed sensory experience. First, we extend the definition of the apperception task to include ambiguous (but still symbolic) input: sequences of sets of disjunctions. Next, we use a neural network to map raw sensory input to disjunctive input. Our binary neural network is encoded as a logic program, so the weights of the network and the rules of the theory can be solved jointly as a single SAT problem. This way, we are able to jointly learn how to perceive (mapping raw sensory information to concepts) and apperceive (combining concepts into declarative rules). (shrink)

The purpose of this note is to present a strong form of the liar paradox. It is strong because the logical resources needed to generate the paradox are weak, in each of two senses. First, few expressive resources required: conjunction, negation, and identity. In particular, this form of the liar does not need to make any use of the conditional. Second, few inferential resources are required. These are: (i) conjunction introduction; (ii) substitution of identicals; and (iii) the inference: From ¬(p (...) ∧ p), infer ¬ p. It is, interestingly enough, also essential to the argument that the ‘strong’ form of the diagonal lemma be used: the one that delivers a term λ such that we can prove: λ = ¬ T(⌈λ⌉); rather than just a sentence Λ for which we can prove: Λ ≡ ¬T(⌈Λ⌉). The truth-theoretic principles used to generate the paradox are these: ¬(S ∧ T(⌈¬S⌉); and ¬(¬S ∧ ¬T(⌈¬S⌉). These are classically equivalent to the two directions of the T-scheme, but they are intuitively weaker. The lesson I would like to draw is: There can be no consistent solution to the Liar paradox that does not involve abandoning truth-theoretic principles that should be every bit as dear to our hearts as the T-scheme. So we shall have to learn to live with the Liar, one way or another. (shrink)

The 'substitution argument' purports to demonstrate the falsity of Russellian accounts of belief-ascription by observing that, e.g., these two sentences: (LC) Lois believes that Clark can fly. (LS) Lois believes that Superman can fly. could have different truth-values. But what is the basis for that claim? It seems widely to be supposed, especially by Russellians, that it is simply an 'intuition', one that could then be 'explained away'. And this supposition plays an especially important role in Jennifer Saul's defense of (...) Russellianism, based upon the existence of an allegedly similar contrast between these two sentences: (PC) Superman is more popular than Clark. (PS) Superman is more popular than Superman. The latter contrast looks pragmatic. But then, Saul asks, why shouldn't we then say the same about the former? The answer to this question is that the two cases simply are not similar. In the case of (PC) and (PS), we have only the facts that these strike us differently, and that people will sometimes say things like (PC), whereas they will never say things like (PS). By contrast, there is an argument to be given that (LS) can be true even if (LC) is false, and this argument does not appeal to anyone's 'intuitions'. The main goal of the paper is to present such a version of the substitution argument, building upon the treatment of the Fregan argument against Russellian accounts of belief itself in "Solving Frege's Puzzle". A subsidiary goal is to contribute to the growing literature arguing that 'intuitions' simply do not play the sort of role in philosophical inquiry that so-called 'experimental philosophers' have supposed they do. (shrink)

This paper attempts to address the question what logical strength theories of truth have by considering such questions as: If you take a theory T and add a theory of truth to it, how strong is the resulting theory, as compared to T? Once the question has been properly formulated, the answer turns out to be about as elegant as one could want: Adding a theory of truth to a finitely axiomatized theory T is more or less equivalent to a (...) kind of abstract consistency statement. A large part of the interest of the paper lies in the way syntactic theories are 'disentangled' from object theories. (shrink)

Birch et. al. see their model as incompatible with higher-order-thought (HOT) theories of consciousness, on which a state is conscious if one is in some suitable way aware of that state. They see higher-order (HO) awareness as an “extra ingredient”. But since Birch et al go on to say that “[t]his is not the place for a detailed discussion of HOT theories,” they don’t address why they take HO awareness to be an extra ingredient or why HOT theorists are convinced (...) that it’s needed. In this commentary we argue that higher-order theories are a crucial for understanding consciousness. (shrink)

This paper attempts to address the question what logical strength theories of truth have by considering such questions as: If you take a theory T and add a theory of truth to it, how strong is the resulting theory, as compared to T? It turns out that, in a wide range of cases, we can get some nice answers to this question, but only if we work in a framework that is somewhat different from those usually employed in discussions of (...) axiomatic theories of truth. These results are then used to address a range of philosophical questions connected with truth, such as what Tarski meant by "essential richness" and the so-called conservativeness argument against deflationism. -/- This draft dates from about 2009, with some significant updates having been made around 2011. Around then, however, I decided that the paper was becoming unmanageable and that I was trying to do too many things in it. I have therefore exploded the paper into several pieces, which will be published separately. These include "Disquotationalism and the Compositional Principles", "The Logical Strength of Compositional Principles", "Consistency and the Theory of Truth", and "What Is Essential Richness?" You should probably read those instead, since this draft remains a bit of a mess. Terminology and notation are inconsistent, and some of the proofs aren't quite right. So, caveat lector. I make it public only because it has been cited in a few places now. (shrink)

我最近读过许多关于计算极限和宇宙作为计算机的讨论,希望找到一些关于多面体物理学家和决策理论家大卫·沃尔珀特的惊人工作的评论,但没有发现一个引文,所以我提出这个非常简短的总结。Wolpert 证明了一些惊人的不可能或不完整的定理(1992-2008-见arxiv dot org)对推理(计算)的限制,这些极限非常一般,它们独立于执行计算的设备,甚至独立于物理定律,因此,它们适用于计算机、物理和人类行为。他们利用Cantor的对角线、骗子悖论和世界线来提供图灵机器理论的 终极定理,并似乎提供了对不可能、不完整、计算极限和宇宙的见解。计算机,在所有可能的宇宙和所有生物或机制,产生,除其他外,非量子力学不确定性原理和一神论的证明。与柴廷、所罗门诺夫、科莫尔加罗夫和维特根斯 坦的经典作品以及任何程序(因此没有设备)能够生成比它拥有的更大复杂性的序列(或设备)的概念有着明显的联系。有人可能会说,这一工作意味着无政府主义,因为没有比物质宇宙更复杂的实体,从维特根斯坦的观点来看 ,"更复杂的"是毫无意义的(没有满足的条件,即真理制造者或测试)。即使是"上帝"(即具有无限时间/空间和能量的"设备")也无法确定给定的&q uot;数字"是否为"随机",也无法找到某种方式来显示给定的"公式"、"定理"或"句子"或"设备&q uot;(所有这些语言都是复杂的语言)游戏)是特定"系统"的一部分。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Mind 和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-201 9年第二次(2019年)》和《自杀乌托邦幻想》第21篇世纪4日 (2019).

Defends the view that understanding can be identified with knowledge of T-sentences against the classical criticisms of Foster and Soames.

In this paper we explore the idea that Pentecostalism is best supported by conjoining it to a postmodern, narrative epistemology in which everything is a text requiring interpretation. On this view, truth doesn’t consist in a set of uninterpreted facts that make the claims of Christianity true; rather, as James K. A. Smith says, truth emerges when there is a “fit” or proportionality between the Christian story and one’s affective and emotional life. We argue that Pentecostals should reject this account (...) of truth, since it leads to either a self-refuting story-relativism or the equally problematic fallacy of story-ism: favoring one’s own story over others without legitimate reason. In either case, we contend, the gospel itself is placed at risk. (shrink)

In the interesting and thought-provoking article Grazziano and colleagues argue for their Attention Schema Theory (AST) of consciousness. They present AST as a unification of Global Workspace Theory (GWT), Illusionism, and the Higher-Order Thought (HOT) theory. We argue it is a mistake to equate 'subjective experience,' ad related terms, with dualism. They simply denote experience. Also, as presented, AST does not accurately capture the essence of HOT for two reasons. HOT is presented as a version of strong illusionism, which it (...) isn't, and HOT requires that one be aware of one's mental life, and postulates that his consists in a re-representation of what is occurring at at the lower-order levels. However, the authors deny that AST involves re-representing visual stimuli. We close by proposing an alternative unification: GWT and AST provide crucial accounts of how lower-order states are assembled and maintained, but higher-order theory provides the account of subjective experience. (shrink)

David Hume is an ardent supporter of the practice of religions toleration. For Hume, toleration forms part of the background that makes progress in philosophy possible, and it accounts for the superiority of philosophical thought in England in the eighteenth century. As he puts it in the introduction to the Treatise: “the improvements in reason and philosophy can only be owing to a land of toleration and of liberty” (T Intro.7; SBN xvii).1 Similarly, the narrator of part 11 of the (...) First Enquiry comments: -/- Our conversation began with my admiring the singular good fortune of philosophy, which, as it requires entire liberty above all other privileges, and chiefly flourishes from the free opposition of sentiments and argu­ mentation, received its first birth in an age and country of freedom and toleration. (EHU 11.2; SBN 132) -/- The toleration to which Hume refers is broader than religious toleration, but in the context of the eighteenth century, religious toleration is clearly the paradigm case. Indeed, religious toleration represents one of the key accomplishments of the culminating event of Hume’s History of England: the Glorious Revolution of 1688. -/- Yet even though religious toleration forms the background of philosophy in general—or perhaps just because it does so—Hume offers precious few arguments for it, and they are, for the most part, given implicitly rather than as formal argu­ ments. Nevertheless, we can distinguish three different, though interrelated, lines of support for toleration in Hume’s thought: (i) an argument based on a general skepticism; (ii) an argument based on a contempt for organized religion; and (iii) a pragmatic argument based on the need for peace and orderly government. From our point of view, what is striking about all of these argument is how un-Lockean they are: Hume does not rely on the idea of a fundamental conceptual separation of church and state, nor on a natural right to freedom of conscience that character­izes writers working in the Lockean tradition. However, of the arguments he gives, only the last, I will argue, has any hope to provide a useful case for toleration. (shrink)

At least since the middle of the twentieth century, philosophers have tended to identify weakness of will with akrasia—i.e. acting, or having a disposition to act, contrary to one‘s judgments about what is best for one to do. However, there has been some recent debate about whether this captures the ordinary notion of weakness of will. Richard Holton (1999, 2009) claims that it doesn’t, while Alfred Mele (2010) argues that, to a certain extent, it does. As Mele recognizes, the (...) question about an ordinary concept here is one apt for empirical investigation. We evaluate Mele’s studies and report some experiments of our own in order to investigate what in the world the ordinary concept of weakness of will is. We conclude that neither Mele nor Holton (previously) was quite right and offer a tentative proposal of our own: the ordinary notion is more like a prototype or cluster concept whose application is affected by a variety of factors. (shrink)

While it seems to be evident that the vision of the eternal return of the same is the solution to the riddle mentioned in "On the vision and the riddle," exactly what constitutes the riddle is anything but clear. Li ke all good riddles the solution demands a paradigm shift. Nietzsche's riddle is solved by a radical rethinking of the concept of time, from a straight line to a circle. I give a detailed account of how Nietzsche's riddle is formulated (...) in such a way tha t the eternal return of the same is the only possible solution. (shrink)

Th e recent revival of Berkeley studies in the last three decades or so make it interesting to look back at George Santayana’s discussion of Berkeley. Th ough Santayana understood the latter’s arguments for immaterialism, he claimed no one could both seriously accept immaterialism, and live, as Berkeley certainly did, an embodied life. As he writes of Berkeley, “Th is idealist was no hermit” (205). Santayana claimed that without matter there was nothing (“no machinery”) for the soul to work on. (...) For a soul (mind) the machinery consists of material objects including one’s body. In this, paper, aft er some introductory comments, particularly on some aspects of early modern philosophy, e.g. the theory of ideas, which Berkeley largely accepts, and the metaphysics of indirect realism which he rejects, I look at the issue of human embodiment, and conclude, although Santayana perhaps misread important aspects of Berkeley’s discussion, he is largely correct in noting that Berkeley’s idealism/immaterialism can’t capture the special relation we have to our bodies. (shrink)

I argue that Berkeley's distinctive idealism/immaterialism can't support his view that objects of sense, immediately or mediately perceived, are causally inert. (The Passivity of Ideas thesis or PI) Neither appeal to ordinary perception, nor traditional arguments, for example, that causal connections are necessary, and we can't perceive such connections, are helpful. More likely it is theological concerns,e.g., how to have second causes if God upholds by continuously creating the world, that's in the background. This puts Berkeley closer to Malebranche than (...) to Hume. -/- As far the what I call the "first strategy;" defending the passivity of ideas by ordinary introspection, I refer to the work of the French psychologist Albert Michotte,(1940) and those now extending his experiments, to show that (1) there is an immediate and quite robust visual impression of causality, (admitted in fact by Berkeley, Malebranche and Hume) and (2) of more importance, the impression isn't due to projecting into nature expectations gained from experienced regularities. (shrink)

Abstract Tom Dougherty observes that challenges to counting the numbers often cite John Taurek’s 1977 article, “Should the Numbers Count.” Dougherty, though sympathetic to Taurek’s (and others) critique of consequentialism’s aggregating good across individuals, defends a non-consequentialist principle for addition he calls “the Ends Principle. Take the case (he labels “Drug”) when an agent, possessing a dose of a lifesaving drug, can save one person with the entire dose, or two people, each of whom only need half the dose. Dougherty (...) argues that a rational agent, summing her altruistic goals (three), but unable to save all three, will save two. I give two criticisms of Dougherty’s paper. (1) He hasn’t ruled out, though acknowledging, the equal chance principle as deontological grounds for deciding Drug. (2) An agent using the Ends Principle in Drug, as he formulates it, will not have the requisite aims to make use of the Principle. I also consider an issue, little discussed, the conditions for aggregation in general. (shrink)

This is a completely informal presentation of the ideas behind the diagonal lemma. One really can't see this important result from too many different angles. This one aims at getting the main idea across. (For the cognoscenti, it is in the spirit of Quine's treatment in terms of "appended to its own quotation".).

In this chapter, we attempt to show that J.P. Moreland's understanding of apologetics is beautifully positioned to counter resistance to a rationally defensible Christianity—resistance arising from the mistaken idea that any rational defense will fail to support or even undermine relationship. We look first at Paul Moser's complaint that since rational apologetics doesn’t prove the God of Christianity, it falls short of delivering what matters most—a personal agent worthy of worship and relationship. We then consider John Wilkinson's charge that the (...) use of reason and argument in evangelistic contexts is relationally futile. Since people aren’t looking for arguments, and logic is an arbitrary human invention, we should present Christianity to others as an irrational faith story. (shrink)

In response to Professor Rorty’s reaction to Professor Habermas’s paper in this symposium, I confess that I am still not sure I understand Rorty’s hostility to ideals such as the ideal of truth. Such ideals as the ideal of truth -- and ideals like those of reason and morality surely stand and fall with the ideal of truth -- seem plainly to have an enormous pragmatic value. They lure us out of our too-constrained, too-limited ethnocentric or idiosyncratic frames of reference. (...) It is always possible, of course, that such ideals may be abused; they have frequently been deployed, in particular, as clubs used to beat down views and modes of behavior that are threatening or otherwise disliked. But they need not be abused. Their proven and potential value is quite extraordinary. They offer us standards which pay explicit respect to the principle that the criteria we use for evaluating ideas and modes of behavior should be nonethnocentric and nonidiosyncratic. They offer us standards that we can appeal to in luring ourselves or others to step outside of our relatively narrow present points of view here and now and toward a broader perspective that can serve us better tomorrow and elsewhere. (shrink)

A longish (12 page) discussion of Richard Sorabji's excellent book, with a further discussion of what it means for a theory of emotions to be a cognitive theory.

Pragmatists, as I understand them, have their own view of what truth and progress are. William James, quite famously, offered a straightforward pragmatic definition of truth. In rejecting in general the idea of truth, Richard Rorty indicates thereby a rejection of this part of the pragmatic tradition. Perhaps Professor Rorty can clarify, in his response, what stops a pragmatist -- armed with the pragmatic definition of truth -- from saying that progress toward the truth was made (for example) through (...) the Copernican revolution in astronomy. (shrink)

Anticipating Martin Buber, Hermann Cohen said we must recognize the living, breathing individual as a “Thou,” and not just as a generic example of humanity. As significant as the universal ethical ideal is for Cohen, he recognized that ethics is concerned with individuals only insofar as they are members of humanity as a whole. Ethics can’t always deal with individual moral feelings or with sin. In other words, it is religion -- rather than ethics -- that concerns itself with the (...) sin of the individual. (shrink)

The hard problem of consciousness is a symptom of a fact of all scientific explanations. This article demonstrates through analogy with uncontroversial explanations that the hard problem of consciousness either shouldn't be considered a problem or that all scientific explanations are also lacking in the same way as an explanation of consciousness.

在评论这本书之前,我提出了对维特根斯坦和西尔和理性的逻辑结构的评论。这里的文章大多在过去十年中已经出版(尽管有些已经更新),还有一个未发表的项目,这里没有什么会令那些跟上他的作品的人感到惊讶。和W一样 ,他被认为是他时代最好的站立哲学家,他的书面作品是坚如磐石,自始至终具有开创性。然而,他未能足够重视后来的W,导致一些错误和混乱。仅举几个例子:在第7页,他两次指出,我们对基本事实的确定性是由于支持我 们主张的压倒性理由,但W在《关于确定性》中明确表明,不可能怀疑我们的系统1感知,记忆和思想,因为它本身就是判断的基础,不能判断本身。在第8页的第一句中,他告诉我们确定性是可更新的,但是这种" 确定性",我们称之为确定性2,是通过经验扩展我们的公理和不可更新的确定性(确定性1)的结果,它完全不同于它命题(真或假)。这当然是W反复展示的"用语言来打击我们智力的魔咒" ;的一个经典例子。一个词- 两个(或许多)不同的用途。 他的最后一章"命题的统一"(以前未出版)也将受益匪浅,阅读W的"关于确定性"或DMS的两本书的OC(见我的评论),因为他们清楚地区分了真正的只有句子描述S1和真 或假描述 S2 的命题。这让我觉得S把S1观念视为命题的一种超优方法,因为他们在S2中开始思考它们后才变成T或F。然而,他的观点是,命题允许陈述实际或潜在的真理和虚假,过去和未来和幻想,从而提供了一个巨大的进步,超过 前或原语言社会,是令人信服的。正如他所指出的,"一个命题是任何可以决定满足条件的东西...和满足的条件...就是这样的。或者,需要补充的是,这可能是或可能想象成这种情况。 总体而言,PNC很好地总结了在维特根斯坦的半个世纪的工作,许多实质性的进展,但在我看来,W仍然是无与伦比的,一旦你明白他在说什么。理想情况下,它们应该一起阅读:西尔为清晰的连贯的散文和概括,用W的敏锐 例子和辉煌的格言来说明。如果我年轻得多,我会写一本书。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日(2019年)。.

Ce n’est pas un livre parfait, mais il est unique, et si vous écrémez les 400 premières pages ou plus, les 300 dernières (sur quelque 700) sont une assez bonne tentative d’appliquer ce qui est connu sur le comportement aux changements sociaux de la violence et des manières au fil du temps. Le sujet fondamental est le suivant : comment notre génétique contrôle-t-elle et limite-t-elle le changement social ? Étonnamment, il ne parvient pas à décrire la nature de la sélection (...) des parents (fitness inclusif) qui explique une grande partie de la vie sociale animale et humaine. Il n’a pas non plus (comme presque tout le monde) un cadre clair pour décrire la structure logique de la rationalité (LSR—terme préféré de John Searle) que je préfère appeler la psychologie descriptive de la pensée de haut ordre (DPHOT). Il aurait dû dire quelque chose sur les nombreuses autres façons d’abuser et d’exploiter les gens et la planète, car ceux-ci sont maintenant beaucoup plus graves que de rendre d’autres formes de violence presque hors de propos. Étendre le concept de violence pour inclure les-conséquences mondiales à long terme de la réplication des gènes de quelqu’un, et avoir une compréhension de la nature de la façon dont fonctionne l’évolution (c.-à-d., la sélection des parents) fournira une perspective très différente sur l’histoire, les événements actuels, et comment les choses sont susceptibles d’aller dans les quelques centaines d’années. On pourrait commencer par noter que la diminution de la violence physique au cours de l’histoire a été compensée (et rendue possible) par le viol sans pitié de la planète (c’est-à-dire par la destruction par les gens de l’avenir de leur propre descendant). Pinker (comme la plupart des gens la plupart du temps) est souvent distrait par les superficialités de la culture quand c’est la biologie qui compte. Voir mes critiques récentes de Wilson 'The Social Conquest of Earth' et Nowak and Highfield’s 'SuperCooperators' ici et sur le net pour un bref résumé de la vacuité de «véritable altruisme»(sélection de groupe), et le fonctionnement de la sélection des parents et l’inutilité et la superficialité de décrire le comportement en termes culturels. C’est la question classique de la nature/nourrir et la nature l’emporte nourrir - infiniment. Ce qui importe vraiment, c’est la violence faite à la terre par l’augmentation incessante de la population et de la destruction des ressources (en raison de la médecine et de la technologie et de la répression des conflits par la police et l’armée). Environ 200.000 personnes de plus par jour (un autre Las Vegas tous les 10 jours, un autre Los Angeles chaque mois), les 6 tonnes ou plus de la base va dans la mer / personne / année - environ 1% du total du monde disparaissant chaque année, etc. signifie que si un miracle se produit la biosphère et la civilisation va largement s’effondrer au cours des deux prochains siècles, et il y aura la famine, la misère et la violence de tous les types. Les manières, les opinions et les tendances des gens à commettre des actes de violence ne sont d’aucune pertinence à moins qu’ils ne puissent faire quelque chose pour éviter cette catastrophe, et je ne vois pas comment cela va se produire. Il n’y a pas de place pour les arguments, et aucun point non plus (oui je suis un fataliste), donc je vais juste faire quelques commentaires comme s’ils étaient des faits. N’imaginez pas que j’ai un intérêt personnel dans la promotion d’un groupe au détriment des autres. J’ai 78, n’ont pas de descendants et pas de proches parents et ne s’identifient à aucun groupe politique, national ou religieux et considèrent ceux que j’appartiens par défaut aussi répugnant que tout le reste. Les parents sont les pires ennemis de la vie sur Terre et, compte tenu de la vue générale des choses, les femmes sont aussi violentes que les hommes quand on considère le fait que la violence des femmes (comme la plupart de celle faite par les hommes) se fait en grande partie au ralenti, à une distance dans le temps et l’espace et la plupart du temps effectuée par procuration -par leurs descendants et par les hommes. De plus en plus, les femmes portent des enfants, qu’elles aient un compagnon ou non et que l’effet d’empêcher une femme de se reproduire est en moyenne beaucoup plus important que d’arrêter un homme, car ils constituent le goulot d’étranglement reproducteur. On peut considérer que les gens et leur progéniture méritent richement toute la misère vient leur chemin et (à de rares exceptions près) les riches et les célèbres sont les pires délinquants. Meryl Streep ou Bill Gates ou J.K Rowling et chacun de leurs enfants peuvent détruire 50 tonnes de terre d’o re plus chaque année pendant des générations dans l’avenir, tandis qu’un fermier indien et son peut détruire 1 tonne. Si quelqu’un nie que c’est très bien, et à leurs descendants, je dis "Bienvenue à l’enfer sur Terre"(WTHOE). Aujourd’hui, l’accent est toujours mis sur les droits de l’homme, mais il est clair que si la civilisation doit avoir une chance, les responsabilités humaines doivent remplacer les droits de l’homme. Personne n’obtient des droits sans être un citoyen responsable et la première chose que cela signifie est la destruction de l’environnement minimal. La responsabilité la plus fondamentale n’est pas les enfants à moins que votre société vous demande de les produire. Une société ou un monde qui permet aux gens de se reproduire au hasard sera toujours exploité par des gènes égoïstes jusqu’à ce qu’il s’effondre (ou atteint un point où la vie est si horrible qu’il ne vaut pas la peine de vivre). Si la société continue à maintenir les droits de l’homme comme primaires, à leurs descendants, on peut dire avec confiance "WTHOE". Ceux qui souhaitent un cadre complet à jour pour le comportement humain de la vue moderne de deuxemssyst peuvent consulter mon livre 'The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Ceux qui s’intéressent à plus de mes écrits peuvent voir «Talking Monkeys --Philosophie, Psychologie, Science, Religion et Politique sur une planète condamnée --Articles et revues 2006-2019 3e ed (2019) et Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) et autres. (shrink)

Tवह लेख के पहले समूह के लिए हम कैसे व्यवहार है कि काफी सैद्धांतिक भ्रम से मुक्त है में कुछ अंतर्दृष्टि देने का प्रयास. अगले तीन समूहों में मैं एक स्थायी दुनिया को रोकने के प्रमुख भ्रम के तीन पर टिप्पणी - प्रौद्योगिकी, धर्म और pol(सहकारी समूह)। लोगों का मानना है कि समाज उनके द्वारा बचाया जा सकता है, तो मैं क्यों यह छोटे लेख और प्रसिद्ध लेखकों द्वारा हाल ही में पुस्तकों की समीक्षा के माध्यम से संभावना नहीं है (...) के रूप में पुस्तक के बाकी में कुछ सुझाव प्रदान करते हैं. अमेरिका और दुनिया अत्यधिक जनसंख्या वृद्धि से पतन की प्रक्रिया में हैं, पिछली सदी के लिए यह सबसे अधिक है और अब यह सब 3 दुनिया के लोगों की वजह से. संसाधनों की खपत और 4 अरब से अधिक ca. 2100 के अलावा औद्योगिक सभ्यता पतन औरएक चौंका देने वालापैमाने पर भुखमरी, रोग, हिंसा और युद्ध बाहर लाना होगा. अरबों मर जाएगा और परमाणु युद्ध सब कुछ है, लेकिन कुछ है। अमेरिका में यह बेहद बड़े पैमाने पर आव्रजन और आप्रवासी प्रजनन द्वारा त्वरित किया जा रहा है, डेमोcracy द्वारा संभव बनाया दुरुपयोग के साथसंयुक्त. भ्रष्ट मानव प्रकृति inexorably अपराध और गरीबी का एक दुःस्वप्न में लोकतंत्र और विविधता के सपने बदल जाता है. पतन का मूल कारण हमारे सहज मनोविज्ञान की अक्षमताको आधुनिक दुनिया के अनुकूल है, जो लोगों को unrelat एड व्यक्तियों के इलाज के लिए की ओर जाता है जैसे कि वे आमहितों था. यह, बुनियादी जीव विज्ञान और मनोविज्ञान की अज्ञानता के अलावा, आंशिक रूप से शिक्षित जो लोकतांत्रिक समाज को नियंत्रित करने के सामाजिक इंजीनियरिंग भ्रम की ओर जाता है. बहुत कम लोग समझते हैं कि अगर आप किसी और को नुकसान पहुँचाने में आपकी मदद करते हैं, तो मुफ्त दोपहर का भोजन नहीं होता और हर एक वस्तु का उपभोग करने से धरती की मरम्मत से परे नष्ट हो जाती है। नतीजतन, हर जगह सामाजिक नीतियां unsustainable हैं और स्वार्थ पर कड़े नियंत्रण के बिना एक के बाद एक सभी समाज अराजकता या तानाशाही में गिर जाएगी. नाटकीय और तत्काल परिवर्तन के बिना, वहाँ अमेरिका, या किसी भी देश है कि एक लोकतांत्रिक प्रणाली के बाद के पतन को रोकने के लिए कोई उम्मीद नहीं है. इसलिए मेरा निबंध "लोकतंत्र द्वारा आत्महत्या". अब यह भी स्पष्ट है कि चीनपर शासन करने वाले सात समाजपथ विश्व युद्ध 3 जीत रहेहैं, और इसलिए उन पर मेरा अंतिम निबंध। केवल बड़ा खतरा आर्टिफिशियल इंटेलिजेंस है जो मैं पिछले पैराग्राफ में संक्षेप पर टिप्पणी है. (shrink)

Avant de commenter le livre, je vous propose des commentaires sur Wittgenstein et Searle et la structure logique de la rationalité. Les essais ici sont pour la plupart déjà publiés au cours de la dernière décennie (bien que certains ont été mis à jour), avec un élément non publié, et rien ici ne viendra comme une surprise pour ceux qui ont suivi son travail. Comme W, il est considéré comme le meilleur philosophe standup de son temps et son travail écrit (...) est solide comme un rocher et révolutionnaire tout au long. Cependant, son incapacité à prendre le W plus tard assez au sérieux conduit à quelques erreurs et confusions. Juste quelques exemples: sur p7, il note deux fois que notre certitude sur les faits de base est due à l’importance écrasante de la raison à l’appui de nos revendications, mais W a montré définitivement dans «Sur la certitude» qu’il n’y a aucune possibilité de douter de la véritable seule structure axiomatique de notre système 1 perceptions, souvenirs et pensées, car il est lui-même la base du jugement et ne peut pas lui-même être jugé. Dans la première phrase sur p8, il nous dit que la certitude est révisable, mais ce genre de «certitude», que nous pourrions appeler Certainty2, est le résultat de l’extension de notre certitude axiomatique et non révisible (Certitude1) par l’expérience et est tout à fait différent car il est proposé (vrai ou faux). C’est bien sûr un exemple classique de la « bataille contre l’envoûtement de notre intelligence par la langue » dont W a démontré maintes et maintes fois. Un mot- deux (ou plusieurs) utilisations distinctes. Son dernier chapitre "L’unité de la proposition" (précédemment inédit) bénéficierait également grandement de la lecture de W "On Certainty" ou les deux livres de DMS sur OC (voir mes commentaires) car ils font clairement la différence entre les phrases vraies seulement décrivant S1 et les propositions vraies ou fausses décrivant S2. Cela me semble comme une approche bien supérieure à S de prendre S1 perceptions comme propositionnelle car ils ne deviennent T ou F après que l’on commence à penser à eux dans S2. Cependant, son point que les propositions permettent des déclarations de vérité réelle ou potentielle et de fausseté, du passé et du futur et de la fantaisie, et donc fournir une énorme avancée sur la société pré ou protolinguistique, est convaincante. Comme il l’affirme : « Une proposition est tout ce qui peut déterminer une condition de satisfaction... et une condition de satisfaction... est que tel ou tel est le cas. Ou, il faut ajouter, qui pourrait être ou aurait pu être ou pourrait être imaginé pour être le cas. Dans l’ensemble, PNC est un bon résumé des nombreuses avancées substantielles sur Wittgenstein résultant du demi-siècle de travail de S, mais à mon avis, W est toujours inégalé une fois que vous saisissez ce qu’il dit. Idéalement, ils devraient être lus ensemble: Searle pour la prose et les généralisations clairement cohérentes, illustrés par les exemples perspicaces de W et les aphorismes brillants. Si j’étais beaucoup plus jeune, j’écrirais un livre faisant exactement cela. Ceux qui souhaitent un cadre complet à jour pour le comportement humain de la vue moderne de deuxemssyst peuvent consulter mon livre 'The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Ceux qui s’intéressent à plus de mes écrits peuvent voir «Talking Monkeys --Philosophie, Psychologie, Science, Religion et Politique sur une planète condamnée --Articles et revues 2006-2019 3e ed (2019) et Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) et autres. (shrink)

本にコメントする前に、私はヴィトゲンシュタインとサールと合理性の論理的構造に関するコメントを提供します。ここでのエッセイは、主に過去10年間にすでに出版されています(いくつかは更新されましたが)、1つ の未発表のアイテムと一緒に、ここで何も彼の仕事に追いついてきた人には驚きではありません。Wと同様に、彼は彼の時代の最高のスタンドアップ哲学者とみなされ、彼の書かれた作品は岩と画期的な全体として固体です 。しかし、後のWを真剣に受け止めなかったことは、いくつかの間違いや混乱につながります。ほんの一例:p7では、基本的な事実に関する私たちの確実性は、私たちの主張を支持する理性の圧倒的な重みによるものだと 2回指摘していますが、Wは「確実に」で、システム1の認識、記憶、思考の真の唯一の公理構造を疑う可能性はないと明確に示しました。p8の最初の文では、彼は確実性が改訂可能であることを教えてくれますが、私た ちが確実性2と呼ぶかもしれないこの種の「確実性」は、経験を通じて公理的で修正不可能な確実性(確実性)を拡張した結果であり、提案(真または偽)として全く異なります。これはもちろん、Wが何度も何度も実証し た「言語による私たちの知性の妖艶との戦い」の典型的な例です。1 つの単語 - 2 つ (または多くの) 異なる使用。 彼の最後の章「命題の統一」(以前は未発表)はまた、S1を記述する真の唯一の文章とS2を記述する真または偽の命題の違いを明確にするので、Wの「確実性について」またはDMSのOCに関する2冊の本(私のレビ ューを参照)を読むことからも大きな利益を得るでしょう。これは、S2で彼らについて考え始めた後にのみTまたはFになるので、S1の認識を命題として受け取ることに対するはるかに優れたアプローチとして私を襲い ます。しかし、命題は、過去と未来とファンタジーの実際または潜在的な真実と虚偽の記述を許可し、したがって、前言語学的または原語社会に対する大きな進歩を提供するという彼の指摘は、誠実です。彼が言うように、 「命題は満足の条件を決定することができるものです。満足の条件.それはそうであるということです。あるいは、追加する必要があります。 全体として、PNCはSの半世紀の仕事に起因するヴィトゲンシュタインに対する多くの実質的な進歩の良い要約ですが、私の見解では、Wは彼が言っていることを理解すると、まだ不平等です。理想的には、彼らは一緒に 読む必要があります:明確な一貫した散文と一般化のためのサールは、Wの厄介な例と華麗な格言で示されています。もし私がずっと若かったら、まさにそれをやっている本を書くだろう。 現代の2つのシス・エムスの見解から人間の行動のための包括的な最新の枠組みを望む人は、私の著書「ルートヴィヒ・ヴィトゲンシュタインとジョン・サールの第2回(2019)における哲学、心理学、ミンと言語の論 理的構造」を参照することができます。私の著作の多くにご興味がある人は、運命の惑星における「話す猿--哲学、心理学、科学、宗教、政治―記事とレビュー2006-2019 第3回(2019)」と21世紀4日(2019年)の自殺ユートピア妄想st Century 4th ed (2019)などを見ることができます。 .

Prima di commentare il libro, offro commenti su Wittgenstein e Searle e sulla struttura logica della razionalità. I saggi qui sono per lo più già pubblicati nell'ultimo decennio (anche se alcuni sono stati aggiornati), insieme a un elemento inedito, e nulla qui verrà come una sorpresa per coloro che hanno tenuto il passo con il suo lavoro. Come W, è considerato il miglior filosofo del suo tempo e il suo lavoro scritto è solido come una roccia e innovativo in tutto. (...) Tuttavia, la sua incapacità di prendere la Successiva W abbastanza sul serio porta ad alcuni errori e confusioni. Solo alcuni esempi: su p7 osserva due volte che la nostra certezza sui fatti di base è dovuta al peso schiacciante della ragione che sostiene le nostre affermazioni, ma W ha mostrato definitivamente in 'On Certainty' che non c'è possibilità di dubitare della vera struttura assiomatica delle nostre percezioni, ricordi e pensieri del sistema 1, poiché è essa stessa la base del giudizio e non può essere giudicata. Nella prima frase su p8 ci dice che la certezza è revisionabile, ma questo tipo di 'certezza', che potremmo chiamare Certezza2, è il risultato dell'estensione della nostra certezza assiomatica e non revisionabile (Certezza1) attraverso l'esperienza ed è completamente diversa in quanto proposizionale (vera o falsa). Questo è ovviamente un classico esempio della "battaglia contro l'intrattenere della nostra intelligenza per linguaggio" che W ha dimostrato più e più volte. Una parola- due (o molti) usi distinti. Anche il suo ultimo capitolo "L'unità della proposizione" (precedentemente inedito) trarrebbe grande beneficio dalla lettura dei due libri di W "On Certainty" o dei due libri di DMS su OC (vedi le mie recensioni) in quanto fanno chiaramente la differenza tra solo frasi vere che descrivono S1 e proposizioni vere o false che descrivono S2. Questo mi sembra un approccio di gran lunga superiore a S's prendendo le percezioni S1 come proposizionale dal momento che diventano solo T o F dopo che si inizia a pensare a loro in S2. Tuttavia, il suo punto che le proposizioni permettono dichiarazioni di verità e falsità reali o potenziali, del passato e del futuro e della fantasia, e quindi forniscono un enorme progresso rispetto alla società pre o protolinguistica, è cogente. Come egli afferma: "Una proposta è qualsiasi cosa che può determinare una condizione di soddisfazione... e una condizione di soddisfazione... è che tale e tale è il caso. Oppure, si deve aggiungere, che potrebbe essere o potrebbe essere stato o potrebbe essere immaginato per essere il caso. Nel complesso, PNC è una buona sintesi dei molti progressi sostanziali su Wittgenstein derivanti dal mezzo secolo di lavoro di S, ma a mio parere, W è ancora ineguagliabile una volta compreso ciò che sta dicendo. Idealmente, dovrebbero essere letti insieme: Searle per la chiara prosa coerente e generalizzazioni, illustrate con esempi perspicaci di W e brillanti aforismi. Se fossi molto più giovane scriverei un libro facendo esattamente questo. Coloro che desiderano un quadro aggiornato completo per il comportamento umano dalla moderna vista a due systems possono consultare il mio libro 'La struttura logica dellafilosofia, psicologia, Mind e il linguaggio in Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Coloro che sono interessati a più dei miei scritti possono vedere 'TalkingMonkeys--Filosofia, Psicologia, Scienza, Religione e Politica su un Pianeta Condannato--Articoli e Recensioni 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) e Suicidal Utopian Delusions nel 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

Bevor ich das Buch kommentiere, möchte ich Kommentare zu Wittgenstein und Searle und der logischen Struktur der Rationalität abgeben. Die Essays hier sind meistens bereits während des letzten Jahrzehnts veröffentlicht (obwohl einige aktualisiert wurden), zusammen mit einem unveröffentlichten Artikel, und nichts hier wird für diejenigen, die mit seiner Arbeit mithalten können, nicht überraschen. Wie W gilt er als der beste Standup-Philosoph seiner Zeit und sein schriftliches Werk ist solide als Fels und bahnbrechender durchweg. SeinVersäumnis, das spätere W so ernst zu (...) nehmen, führt jedoch zu einigen Fehlern und Verwirrungen. Nur ein paar Beispiele: Auf S. 7 stellt er zweimal fest, dass unsere Gewissheit über grundlegende Tatsachen auf das überwältigende Gewicht der Vernunft zurückzuführen ist, das unsere Behauptungen stützt, aber W hat in "On Certainty" definitiv gezeigt, dass es keine Möglichkeit gibt, an der wirklichen axiomamatischen Struktur unserer System-1-Wahrnehmungen, Erinnerungen und Gedanken zu zweifeln, da sie selbst die Grundlage für das Urteil ist und nicht selbst beurteilt werden kann. Im ersten Satz auf P8 sagt er uns, dass Sicherheit revisierbar ist, aber diese Art von "Sicherheit", die wir Sicherheit2 nennen könnten, ist das Ergebnis der Erweiterung unserer axiomamatischen und nicht revisierbaren Gewissheit (Sicherheit1) durch Erfahrung und ist völlig anders, wie sie propositional (wahr oder falsch) ist. Dies ist natürlich ein klassisches Beispiel für den "Kampf gegen die Verhexung unserer Intelligenz durch Sprache", den W. immer wieder demonstrierte. Ein Wort - zwei (oder viele) unterschiedliche Verwendungen. Sein letztes Kapitel "Die Einheit des Vorschlags" (bisher unveröffentlicht) würde auch sehr davon profitieren, W es "On Certainty" oder DMS es two books on OC (siehe meine Rezensionen) zu lesen, da sie den Unterschied zwischen wahren Sätzen, die S1 beschreiben, und wahren oder falschen Sätzen, die S2 beschreiben, deutlich machen. Dies erscheint mir als eine weit überlegene Herangehensweise an Ses Nehmen S1 Wahrnehmungen als propositional, da sie erst T oder F werden, nachdem man beginnt, über sie in S2 nachzudenken. Sein Standpunkt, dass Die Sätze Aussagen von tatsächlicher oder potenzieller Wahrheit und Falschheit, von Vergangenheit und Zukunft und Fantasie erlauben und damit einen enormen Fortschritt gegenüber der vor- oder protolinguistischen Gesellschaft ermöglichen, ist überzeugend. Er sagt: "Ein Satz ist alles, was eine Bedingung der Zufriedenheit bestimmen kann... und eine Bedingung der Zufriedenheit... ist, dass dies der Fall ist und so ist." Oder, das muss man hinzufügen, das könnte oder könnte sein oder sein könnte. Insgesamt ist PNC eine gute Zusammenfassung der vielen wesentlichen Fortschritte gegenüber Wittgenstein, die sich aus S' halbes Jahrhundert Arbeit ergeben, aber meiner Meinung nach ist W immer noch unerreicht, wenn man begreift, was er sagt. Im, Idealfall sollten sie zusammen gelesen werden: Searle für die klare kohärente Prosa und Verallgemeinerungen, illustriert mit W es perspicacious Beispiele und brillanten Aphorismen. Wenn ich viel jünger wäre, würde ich ein Buch schreiben, das genau das tut. Wer aus der modernen zweisystems-Sichteinen umfassenden, aktuellen Rahmen für menschliches Verhalten wünscht, kann mein Buch "The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019) konsultieren. Die jenigen,die sich für mehr meiner Schriften interessieren, können 'Talking Monkeys--Philosophie, Psychologie, Wissenschaft, Religion und Politik auf einem verdammten Planeten --Artikel und Rezensionen 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) und Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) und andere sehen. (shrink)

이 책에 댓글을 달기 전에, 나는 비트겐슈타인과 Searle과 합리성의 논리적 구조에 대한 의견을 제공합니다. 여기에 에세이는 대부분 이미 지난 10 년 동안 출판 (일부는 업데이트되었지만), 하나의 게시되지 않은 항목과 함께, 여기에 아무것도 그의 작품을 유지 한 사람들에게 놀라움으로 올 것이다. W와 마찬가지로 그는 동시대의 최고의 스탠드업 철학자로 여겨지며, 그의 저술작품은 전체적으로 바위와 획기적인 작품으로 견고합니다. 그러나,, 그의 실패는 충분히 심각하게 나중에 W를 가지고 몇 가지 실수와 혼란에 이르게. 단지 몇 가지 예 : p7에 그는 기본 사실에 대한 우리의 확실성은 우리의 (...) 주장을 지원하는 이유의 압도적 인 무게때문이라고 두 번 지적하지만, W는 '확실성에'에서 결정적으로 우리의 시스템 1 인식의 진정한 유일한 축 세포 구조를 의심 할 가능성이 없다는 것을 보여 주었다, 기억과 생각, 그것은 그 자체가 판단의 기초이기 때문에. p8의 첫 번째 문장에서 그는 확실성이 개정 될 수 있다고 우리에게 말하지만, 우리가 확실성2라고 부를 수있는 이런 종류의 '확실성'은 경험을 통해 우리의 공리및 비회복확실성 (확실성1)을 확장한 결과이며 명제 (참 또는 거짓)와 는 완전히 다릅니다. 이것은 물론 W가 거듭 시연한 "언어에 의한 우리의 지능의 요정에 맞서 싸우는 전투"의 전형적인 예입니다. 하나의 단어- 두 (또는 많은) 별개의 용도. 그의 마지막 장 "발의안의 통일"(이전에 출판되지 않은)은 또한 W의 "확실성에"또는 OC에 DMS의 두 권의 책을 읽는 것이 크게 도움이 될 것입니다 (내 리뷰 참조) 그들은 S1을 설명하는 진정한 유일한 문장과 S2를 설명하는 진실 또는 거짓 제안의 차이를 명확히로. 이것은 S2에서 그들에 대해 생각하기 시작한 후에 만 T 또는 F가되기 때문에 S1 인식을 제안으로 취하는 S의 훨씬 우수한 접근 법으로 나를 공격합니다. 그러나, 제안은 실제 또는 잠재적 진실과 거짓, 과거와 미래와 환상의 진술을 허용하고, 따라서 사전 또는 프로토티즘 사회에 큰 진보를 제공하는 그의 지적은, cogent (중요한) . 그는 "제안은 만족의 조건을 결정할 수있는 모든 것입니다 ... 그리고 만족의 조건 ... 그런 경우입니다." 또는, 하나 추가 해야, 그 수 있습니다 또는 경우 로 상상 될 수 있습니다. 전반적으로, PNC는 S의 작품의 반세기에서 발생하는 비트 겐슈타인을 통해 많은 실질적인 발전의 좋은 요약이지만, 내 보기에, W는 여전히 당신이 그가 무슨 말을 하는지 파악하면 타의 추종을 불허한다. 이상적으로, 그들은 함께 읽어야한다 : 명확한 일관된 산문과 일반화에 대한 Searle, W의 perspicacious (매우 명확한) 예와 화려한 격언으로 설명. 제가 훨씬 어렸을 때, 저는 그 일을 하는 책을 쓰곤 했습니다. 현대 의 두 systems (시스템) 보기에서인간의 행동에 대한 포괄적 인 최신 프레임 워크를 원하는 사람들은 내 책을 참조 할 수 있습니다'철학의 논리적 구조, 심리학, 민d와 루드비히 비트겐슈타인과 존 Searle의언어' 2nd ed (2019). 내 글의 더 많은 관심있는 사람들은 '이야기 원숭이를 볼 수 있습니다-철학, 심리학, 과학, 종교와 운명 행성에 정치 - 기사 및 리뷰 2006-2019 3 rd 에드 (2019) 및 21st 세기 4번째 에드 (2019) 및 기타에서 자살 유토피아 망상. (shrink)

Прежде чем комментировать книгу, я предлагаю комментарии по Витгенштейну и Сирл и логическая структура рациональности. Эссе здесь в основном уже опубликованы в течение последнего десятилетия (хотя некоторые из них были обновлены), наряду с одним неопубликованным пунктом, и ничего здесь не будет сюрпризом для тех, кто не отставал от его работы. Как W, он сосчитан как самый лучший философ standup его времени и его написанная работа тверда как утес и новаторская повсеместно. Тем неменее, его неспособность принять более поздний W достаточно серьезно (...) приводит к некоторым ошибкам и путаницы. Всего несколько примеров: на p7 он дважды отмечает, что наша уверенность в основных фактах объясняется подавляющим весом разума, поддерживающего наши претензии, но W показал окончательно в "На определенности", что нет никакой возможности сомневаться в истинной только аксиоматической структуры нашей системы 1 восприятия, воспоминания и мысли, так как она сама является основой для суждения и не может сама судить. В первом предложении на p8 он говорит нам, что определенность является пересмотренным, но такого рода "определенность", которую мы могли бы назвать Определенность2, является результатом расширения нашей аксиоматической и невозметичной определенности (Certainty1) через опыт и совершенно разные, как это предложение (истинное или ложное). Это, конечно, классический пример "борьбы с заколдованием нашего интеллекта языком", который W демонстрировал снова и снова. Одно слово - два (или много) различных применений. Его последняя глава "Единство предложения" (ранее неопубликованные) также выиграют большую пользу от чтения W в "О определенности" или DMS две книги по OC (см. мои отзывы), как они ясно разница между истинными только предложения, описывающие S1 и истинные или ложные предложения, описывающие S2. Это кажется мне гораздо превосходным подходом к S принимая S1 восприятия как пропозиционный, поскольку они только стать T или F после того, как один начинает думать о них в S2. Тем не менее, его точка, что предложения позволяют заявления фактической или потенциальной правды и лжи, прошлого и будущего и фантазии, и, таким образом, обеспечить огромный прогресс над до или протолингвистического общества, является убедительным. Как он заявляет, что "предложение что-нибудь на всех, что может определить состояние удовлетворения ... и состояние удовлетворения... является то, что такие и такие дело ". Или, нужно добавить, что может быть или, возможно, были или могут быть себе, чтобы быть так. В целом, PNC является хорошим резюме многих существенных достижений по Витгенштейн в результате S полвека работы, но, на мой взгляд, W по-прежнему не имеет равных, как только вы поймете, что он говорит. Видеале, они должны быть прочитаны вместе: Сирл для четкой последовательной прозы и обобщения, иллюстрированные проницательными примерами И блестящими афоризмами. Если бы я был намного моложе, я бы написал книгу делать именно это. Те, кто желает всеобъемлющего до современных рамок для человеческого поведения из современных двух systEms зрения могут проконсультироваться с моей книгой"Логическая структура философии, психологии, Минd иязык в Людвиг Витгенштейн и Джон Сирл" второй ред (2019). Те, кто заинтересован в более моих сочинений могут увидеть "Говоря обезьян - Философия, психология, наука, религия и политика на обреченной планете - Статьи и обзоры 2006-2019 3-й ed (2019) и suicidal утопических заблуждений в 21-мst веке 4-й ed (2019) th и другие. (shrink)

David Rosenthal is a well-known defender of a particular kind of theory of consciousness known as the higher-order thought theory (HOTT). Higher-order theories are united by what Rosenthal calls the Transitivity Principle (TP), which states that a mental state is conscious iff one is conscious of oneself, in some suitable way, as being in that mental state. Since there are various ways to implement TP and HOTT commits one to the view that any mental state could occur unconsciously it seems (...) to predict that a mental state’s being conscious doesn’t have any significant function to perform. An unconscious mental state, according to the theory, has most of its causal connections already, as evidenced by priming studies, subliminal perception, and other empirical findings. Given this, one early objection to HOTT was to emphasize this consequence of the theory. Since consciousness does have a function any theory which predicts that it doesn’t must be suspect. Rosenthal’s primary goal in this paper is to defend HOTT against this objection. In fact he argues that if we could establish that consciousness has no function independently of HOTT we would then have an analogous argument for it: Since consciousness doesn’t have any significant function any theory which predicts that it doesn’t fares be. (shrink)

Singularity has been a concern of the developers of cybernetics and artificial intelligence (AI) since the pioneering writings of such thinkers as Norbert Weiner. Yet many accept the inevitability of systems of AI surpassing human control and are optimistic that machine intelligence will harmonize human life with our environment. This essay examines this optimism against a reading of two poets: Richard Brautigan and Friedrich Hölderlin. Through these readings, it will attempt to show that the eclipse of nature by human (...) beings can be used to examine the eclipse of the human being by machine intelligence. Thus, what is missing in machine intelligence is a dimension related to the experience of pain and joy that reconnect us to reflect on what has been severed or lost in the movement of humanity through history. This demonstrates that the very categories of optimism and pessimism concerning the future of AI points to the value of life, one that can never be encoded into our machines. (shrink)