Thursday, October 31, 2019
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Thursday, October 24, 2019
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Monday, October 21, 2019
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
counters for our philosophy paper
I'M PROVIDING HERE COUNTERARGUMENTS THAT ARE NOT THAT EASY TO FIND IN INTERNET (FOR OBVIOUS REASONS), THIS IS PROVISIOINAL INFORMATION. NOW YOU SHOULD FIND BETTER SOURCES YOURSELF.
#metoo critics
1. they counter unproved accusations with presumption of innocence, 2. they point to an increase culture of victimization, 3. the problem is not the clear cases of harassment, which are wrong and illegal, but to subtle forms where is up for the accuser to "interpret" behavior that may not be meant as such, by the supposed perpetrator. 4. criticism to the #metoo, has come from women in France, with the motto "freedom to offend",
climate change critics
1. the problem of failed predictions. 2. disagreement: from 500 scientists, disagreement from Finland scientists, here, from a reputed MIT scientist, + this one + this one + this one, + the founder of Greenpeace on CO2, physicist Nir Shaviv explains how climate change became accepted + Nobel Physicist Ivar Giaver, 3. the failure of renewable energy in Europe. 5. the stubborn problem of mitigation vs. economic growth (China, India and Brazil are now the "big polluters"), 6. why is nuclear energy never addressed as more successful than renewables? + (this one from forbes), 7. the problem of reversing economic gains vs. social instability as result, 8. the tension between mitigation and adaptation, 9. unforeseen problems of climate engineering, in terms of unintended consequences. 10. finally address the unqualified acceptance of these ideas through panic and apocalypticism for political gain.
same sex marriage critics
1. these critics are neither religious fanatics, nor homophobes, 2. they're traditionalists, who make a case for the advantage of the man/woman nuclear family, which evolved as a natural process during millennia, with the purpose of human procreation and social cohesion. they believe such an important social institution shouldn't be tweaked for social upgrading purposes. 4. traditionalists take into account the weight of traditions as a counterbalance to quick, untested cultural changes exacted since the twentieth century (with little time for the slow, incremental test needed in the social sphere).
socialism critics
1. they are economic libertarians, 2. socialism as planned economy has failed in the URSS, the Eastern Block (during cold war). Also in Latin America (Cuba & Venezuela), and North Korea. 3. if we're talking about socialism-a-la-northern countries (citizens are taxed about 60% of their income for government programs). 4. even in 3. the differences between a country like Denmark and Sweden the USA are huge: a) Denmark, Sweden, Norway are very homogeneous societies with small populations, b) the cultural makeup of northern cooperation is quite different from the cultural make up of competition in the America (cultural habits are quite important when factoring untested policies). 5. the market, as a supervinient structure of free agents pursuing their own gain, is a better option than centrally planning the economy. why? 5. the libertarian argument again: why leave the fundamental wealth/making decisions of your life in the hand of bureaucrats? important critiques against: ludwig von mises' socialism an economic and sociological analysis, f. a. hayek's road to serfdom.
#metoo critics
1. they counter unproved accusations with presumption of innocence, 2. they point to an increase culture of victimization, 3. the problem is not the clear cases of harassment, which are wrong and illegal, but to subtle forms where is up for the accuser to "interpret" behavior that may not be meant as such, by the supposed perpetrator. 4. criticism to the #metoo, has come from women in France, with the motto "freedom to offend",
climate change critics
1. the problem of failed predictions. 2. disagreement: from 500 scientists, disagreement from Finland scientists, here, from a reputed MIT scientist, + this one + this one + this one, + the founder of Greenpeace on CO2, physicist Nir Shaviv explains how climate change became accepted + Nobel Physicist Ivar Giaver, 3. the failure of renewable energy in Europe. 5. the stubborn problem of mitigation vs. economic growth (China, India and Brazil are now the "big polluters"), 6. why is nuclear energy never addressed as more successful than renewables? + (this one from forbes), 7. the problem of reversing economic gains vs. social instability as result, 8. the tension between mitigation and adaptation, 9. unforeseen problems of climate engineering, in terms of unintended consequences. 10. finally address the unqualified acceptance of these ideas through panic and apocalypticism for political gain.
same sex marriage critics
1. these critics are neither religious fanatics, nor homophobes, 2. they're traditionalists, who make a case for the advantage of the man/woman nuclear family, which evolved as a natural process during millennia, with the purpose of human procreation and social cohesion. they believe such an important social institution shouldn't be tweaked for social upgrading purposes. 4. traditionalists take into account the weight of traditions as a counterbalance to quick, untested cultural changes exacted since the twentieth century (with little time for the slow, incremental test needed in the social sphere).
socialism critics
1. they are economic libertarians, 2. socialism as planned economy has failed in the URSS, the Eastern Block (during cold war). Also in Latin America (Cuba & Venezuela), and North Korea. 3. if we're talking about socialism-a-la-northern countries (citizens are taxed about 60% of their income for government programs). 4. even in 3. the differences between a country like Denmark and Sweden the USA are huge: a) Denmark, Sweden, Norway are very homogeneous societies with small populations, b) the cultural makeup of northern cooperation is quite different from the cultural make up of competition in the America (cultural habits are quite important when factoring untested policies). 5. the market, as a supervinient structure of free agents pursuing their own gain, is a better option than centrally planning the economy. why? 5. the libertarian argument again: why leave the fundamental wealth/making decisions of your life in the hand of bureaucrats? important critiques against: ludwig von mises' socialism an economic and sociological analysis, f. a. hayek's road to serfdom.
abortion pro and con
here is a good pro and con link with clear points,
here is a good link from a medical perspective,
here is a middle road argument: pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion,
here's a ok Britannica link,
here another pro-abortion link,
Monday, October 14, 2019
Sunday, October 13, 2019
a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric CO2, a new study from NASA
click here for more information,
deserts are greening from CO2,
deserts are greening from CO2,
The fertilisation effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air, or both. If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants in arid environments will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves.
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
chapter 4 homework
1. Why does Descartes believe that the mind is different from the body?
2. What is Logical Behaviorism? how can you refute this formula MS-->BS? Explain.
3. Why is Psychology a soft science? Explain.
4. What is Identity theory? Is Identity Theory is better than Logical Behaviorism? Explain.
5. What is qualia? Why do we call qualia a first-person report?
5. What is Nagel's BAT thought experiment? What does it prove?
6. What is Functionalism?
7. What is Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment?
8. After going through questions 1-5 regarding the mind, what can we say about mental states?
9. So, finally what is the mind according to the systemic model of the brain?
ALL YOUR ANSWERS ARE DOWN HERE LOOK FOR THEM!!!
chapter 4
Epiphenomenalism: the mind is an ineffective byproduct of
physical processes. (The brain affects the mind, but the mind doesn't
affect the brain)
Problem of other minds: It is the philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible to know that there are other minds in the world.
CARTESIAN DUALISM (Rene Descartes) The mind is an immaterial
thinking substance that interacts with the body. Decartes uses a
deductive argument to prove it, 1. "I can conceive I exist without a
body", 2. "the body is divisible, the mind is not," therefore: "mind and
body are different."
Logical Behaviorism: MS ↔ BS (Mental states are Behavioral states) and
Behavioral States are Behavioral Dispositions (the ability to respond to certain stimulus) . So mental states are
reducible to behavioral dispositions.
HOWEVER...
A behavioral state is not sufficient OR necessary for being in a mental state. How do we know that?
FAKING BEHAVIOR/ Counterexamples to Logical Behaviorism: The Pretender Thought Experiment ● A who is born without
the ability to feel pain lears to exhibit the appropriate
pain behavior in appropriate situations. ● If someone kicks him, he
pretends that it hurts him (he acts/behaves like someone who is in
pain). According to this counterexample: Having the right behavioral
dispositions does NOT GUARANTEE (not sufficient) that someone is in a
certain mental state.
[Putnam's
Spartan Thought Experiment ]
● the spartan has the ability to suppress all involuntary pain behavior
though they feel pain and they dislike it just like we do. this
thought experiment
undermines logical behaviorism because the theory would have us believe
that the Spartans are never in pain because they never ACT as if they
are in pain. This is obviously not true.
So, mental states are not reducible to behavioral states.
Identity Theory: MS ↔ BrS (mental states are brain states)
It is simpler, better than Cartesian dualism because it doesn’t assume
the existence of an immaterial substance. There is no need to go beyond
the physical to explain the mental. Our behavior is caused by the brain,
NOT the mind. Identity Theory is better than Logical Behaviorism
because (being the study of the brain) it's closer to the source of the
mind.
Many Identity theorists are epiphenomenalists, e.g., the
mind is to the brain as smoke is to fire.
HOWEVER… Knowing a person’s brain does NOT imply knowing what the person is thinking/feeling.
Counterexamples to Identity Theory:
[Thomas Nagel’s Bat Experiment ] ● We know how
bats use sonar as a form of perception. Nagel shows that there’s no way
that we can experience or imagine this form of perception. ● WHY NOT? Because facts
about what it is like for the experiencing organism are only accessible
from one's point of view, which is the organism itself (1st person). ●
All of the physical properties of bats can be known by non-bats, BUT, no
non-bat will ever know what it's like to be a bat. If mental states
were identical to brain states, then it would be possible to know
everything about the mind by knowing everything there is to know about
the brain. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
So, mental states exhibit Nagel's properties: 1- private (1st-person reports), 2. subjective.
They are felt from the inside. Physical properties are 1- public (third person point of view), 2- objective.
Functionalism: MS ↔ FS
When two things perform the same function, they are said to have the
same “causal role.” Functionalism claims that THE MIND IS WHAT THE BRAIN DOES.
If a robot and a human can perform the same task (same
causal role), they are said to be in the same state of mind. Something
else about functionalism is that mental states can cause other mental
states, i.e., if you see your boyfriend cheating with another woman
(input), the following mental states occur (outputs): 1- shock, 2-
jealousy, 3-
bitterness, (even vengeance).
Counterexamples to Functionalism: [Putnam's Inverted Spectrum Thought Experiment]
● Imagine an individual
is born with an inverted color spectrum. What is red she sees green and
vice-versa. ● Then she learns how to tell the difference. She grows up
and gets her driver's license. If you asked
her: “What color is the top light of the traffic light? She would say
RED (she sees it GREEN). ● Her visual experience
(the qualitative content - the feel IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF
US). This proves that not every time we are in a functional state
(STOPPING AT A RED LIGHT) we are in the same MENTAL STATE.
Lewis' Mad Man Thought Experiment: A person
feels a headache (input) but instead of going "ouch" (output, function of pain) he
studies calculus. Here he's in the same mental state normal people are,
but in a different functional state. This proves one can be in a mental
state and not in the same functional state.
TURING TEST FOR INTELLIGENCE: Imitation game. There is a man (A) and a woman (B) and an
interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. → The object of the game is
for the interrogator to determine which of the two is the man and which
is the woman. → It is A’s object in the game to try to cause C to make
the wrong identification. The object for the game of B is to help the
interrogator.
For Turing there’s nothing more to being intelligent than being able to
use language as we do. WHICH MEANS… If a computer is able to do this,
then it is smart.
WHAT
DO WE LEARN? MENTAL STATES ARE NOT REDUCIBLE TO BEHAVIORAL STATES, TO
BRAIN STATES, TO FUNCTIONAL STATES. MENTAL STATES ARE IRREDUCIBLE. WE
CALL PROPERTY OF MENTAL STATES A PRIMITIVE PROPERTY.
INTENTIONALITY IS A PRIMITIVE PROPERTY, it's the “ABOUTNESS” of a thought. Without
intentionality our life would be completely mechanical. A SYNONYM FOR
INTENTIONALITY IS QUALIA, i.e., THE UNIQUE PRIVATE SUBJECTIVE "FEEL" OF
YOUR MENTAL STATE.
NOW COMES MY ANALISYS OF THE MIND AS SYSTEMIC PROPERTY OF THE BRAIN.
this is a sketch of a systemic model for the mind (going up emergence, going down supervinience)
emergent property → is a property which is caused by things that lack that property & interact in certain ways. IN SISTEMS THE WHOLE IS BIGGER THAN THE PARTS. The emergent property arises when all parts are put together. ● The mind is emergent upon and caused by brain activity. EX: Love at first sight. ● Life is an emergent property. ● HURRICANES (wind-rain-destruction) ← ALL of these variables MUST happen in order for the emergent property to arise.
click here for examples of emergent properties,
Downward causation → Downward causation is used to explain the effect of the environment on biological evolution. It suggests the causal relationship between the HIGHER levels of a system to LOWER levels of that system. For example: mental events causes physical events. There is a two-way interaction between consciousness and the brain: Consciousness determines the succession of nerve impulses, and nerve impulses determine the content of consciousness.
click here for a better understanding of the brain-systemic-model for the mind,