Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Ethics, Homework #14

1 What's Hedonism and the pleasure argument? (Triff lecture)

2- What is "sustainable pleasure" according to Epicurus? (same lecture as above)

3- Define Ethical egoism. What's the difference between genuine (BEST) and apparent interests? Bring an example from your own life.

4- Point to the difference between interest and best interest. Bring an example from real life to make the point.

5- Make a defense of ethical egoism in two points.

(Whatever answer is stressed in yellow requires at least 30 words).

Thursday, October 27, 2022

Free will vs. determinism (final thoughts)


When you adopt a theory it has to be on basic merits: 1. simplicity: a small number of assumptions,  2. consistency: lack of internal contradictions, 3. conservatism: quality of fitting with previous proven knowledge, and 4. fruitfullness: the ability to make predictions.  

Determinism: Let's go one by one, determinism seems simple enough, me move from an argument about the macro world (physics) to an argument about the microworld (our neurons). It all seems to follow causal relations. From Cosmic causality to neurophysiology, to clinical psychology to Freudian theory, etc, it all seems to follow a deterministic path. 

In psychological terms, we are determined by previous patterns of behavior, in neurophysiological terms, we are determined by behavioral neuroscience. There is also our genetic makeup. 

The implications for human behavior into morals is that we are not responsible for our actions. 

And this seems a problem of scientific dissonance since most of our human sciences depend on a different analysis. That is, free will. 

Compatibilism: The traditional version seems to balance both free will and determinism. The TC accepts determinism at the macro level, but not so at the micro level. Here we enter a supervenient property: the mind. The mind causes our actions via the will. We will from the inside. But not always. When not? When there are external constraints. How much of this prevents our willingness. Here we go back to Freud's superego. The constraints are not internal, but external. The consequence makes sense for morality. We're responsible for our free actions.  

The Hierarchical version offers a more limited picture. We can observe three addicts from the outside believing they are free, while only one is: the happy addict. 

A counterargument here is Slote's hypnotized patient. He believes he is choosing X from Y, but the truth is that he is acting on SOV planted by the hypnotist.   

Libertarianism: Here free actions are caused by selves. Libertarians believe in determinism agent causation and event causation. Yes, events can cause events (physics), but agents also cause events at the supervenient level (philosophy of the mind). Their argument is pretty good.  We feel as if we deliberate and cause our actions. Why would this be a false picture? It doesn't make sense from the evolutionary point of view to develop an inner sense that is totally deceiving and disconnected from reality.

The counter argument comes from Libet's experiment.  

Libertarians offer a rebuttal. They counter that Libet is not measuring conscious activity, but "metaconscious" activity. What's that? We are in metaconscious mode when we think that we think. Being aware of being aware is second-order awareness, which explains the delay of 150 msec between the EEG and EMG. 

If libertarianism is true, we are responsible for our actions. It explains why social engineering is doomed to fail.  Think of the examples in the USSR for 80 years. And why two brothers raised in the same environment produce different personalities with different behaviors.

Sunday, October 23, 2022

Homework 11 Chapter 5 (free will and determinism)

Based on the lecture on Chapter 5

1. What is Hard Determinism (HD from here on)? Explain
2. if HD is true, are we responsible for our actions? Explain.
3. How is punishment considered for Hard Determinists?
4. What's Compatibilism? 
5. Explain how Compatibilism reconciles free will and determinism using the idea of alternative possibilities.
6. Is punishment justified for Compatibilists?
7. Read p. 254 from the textbook. Explain how John Locke makes a distinction from a voluntary action and a free action. 
8. What is the benefit of Hierarchical compatibilism over Traditional Compatibilism?
9. Provide a counterargument against Compatibilism.
10. What's libertarianism? Explain the argument from experience.
11. Explain Libet's experiment and how it counters Libertarianism. Click here for more about the experiment.

Explain questions require at least 25 words. 

Chapter 5 (From hard determinism to Libertarianism)


1. Causal Determinism (every event has a cause that makes it happen + laws of nature) and 
Hard determinism the doctrine that there are no free actions. Hard determinism assumes that if CD is true than there are no free actions becasue as our bodies are made up of matter, we must be subject to the same lwas of causation. 

If HD is true, then there is no human responsibility: i.e., if we are not free, we cannot be responsible for our actions (since one is responsible if and only if one can make choices). 


What's good here? Determinism seems a good explanation for the physics of the macro universe. And it's the consensus in the physicalist disciplines: psychiatry, neurophysiology, etc.  

However, the idea that there's no free will presents challenges to other disciplines, like ethics (which conceives a free subject, which is responsible for their actions) and jurisprudence. 

2. Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.
Soft determinism: Determined actions can nevertheless be free. 

Traditional Compatibilism (Free actions have to be 1. caused by one's will and 2. not externally constrained). 

Here's the reasoning:

Principle of alternative possibilities:  one can be held responsible for doing something only if one could have done otherwise. "Could have done otherwise" means "if you had chosen otherwise, then you would have done otherwise." 

Think of our "fork example" of a student being late for class. He chooses ( A) "having coffee with lots of traffic," instead of (B) "not having coffee and no traffic." For Traditional Compatibilism, the student is responsible for being late since "if he had chosen (B) instead of (A), he would have been on time for class. 

Counterexample: "Taylor's Ingenious Physiologist. In class we discussed how TV can "plant" desires. So in a way is a kind of ingenious physiologist.

The advantage of Traditional Compatibilism is that it acknowledges some determinism while making room for free will. It seems plausible that external constraints play a definite role in our lives and restrict our willing from the inside, and therefore our responsibility. 

3. Hierarchical Compatibilism: There are First and Second Order Desires and Second Order Volitions. Remember: A first-order desire is directed (outside) to an object or state of affairs, a second-order desire is a desire about a desire. A second-order volition is a second-order desire on which one decisively acts. 


Harry Frankfurt's three-drug addicts: Let's call a first-order desire: FOD, a second-order desire: SOD, a second-order volition: SOV. So we get the following:  

Wanton addict: FOD, not SOD, not SOV, not free. 
Happy Addict: FOD, SOD, SOV, free.
Unwilling Addict: FOD, SOD (only this desire is against his taking the drug), SOV, but now he cannot act on these SOV, so he's not free). Remember, to be free one has to either formulate a SOV or be able to act on it. 

Lo interesante del experimento es que desde fuera tal parece que tanto the happy and the wanton addict are free, when in fact they are not acting decisively on their second-order desires.  

Now comes the problem. Can there be an SOV caused by forces outside our control? Here is a counterargument:

Slote's Hypnotized patient: Robert is undecided between two desires, X and Y. He is visited by a hypnotist who, unbeknownst to Robert puts him in a trance and induces an SOV in favor of X. Now, as a result of having this SOV planted, he acts to satisfy X, never suspecting that his decisiveness has been induced by the hypnotist.    

Punishment: How do compatibilists see punishment? p. 203. Punishment cannot be retributive (eye-for-an-eye). The only legitimate way of punishment is rehabilitation and deterrence. Criminal actions are dictated by genes and habits (nature and nurture). Retributive punishment makes sense if it's deserved. But nothing people do is up to them.

4. Libertarianism

We have two types of causation event causation and agent causation. When an event causes an event there's a physical causation. Ex: Gravitation. Agent causation is different. Here we have an agent causing an event. Example: free will. 

Libertarianism holds that agents can cause events. How? The mind supervenes the brain. We call this process FREE WILL. 

There are two arguments: 1) Argument from Experience. 2) Argument from deliberation.

1) We experience ourselves willing the action from the inside. 

2) We feel as if we deliberate options and make decisions.  

Libet's Neurophysiological challenge: seems to show that consciousness of a decision arises only after the decision has already been made (the 300 millisecond gap between the decision to press the button and the brain signal). 

Rebuttal by libertarians: There's a difference between making a "conscious decision" and a "meta-conscious decision" (meta-conscious awareness is second order). For the libertarian, the subject in Libet's report is not having a "conscious" but a "meta-conscious" decision. So it's no surprise that it happens "after" the conscious decision was made.
 

__________________

Radical Libertarianism: Jean-Paul Sartre's libertarianism (known as Existentialism) holds that the self is essentially free. His analysis is ontological. Let's begin with this point about essence & existence: 

Existence precedes essence. 

We exist first and are "defined" later. This happens because the self (consciousness) is in a constant state of becoming

To cope with our own boundless FREEDOM we come up with a sort of justification for our actions, which Sartre calls "bad faith." However, since not choosing is choosing, in the end, we remain responsible for our actions. 

The only possible constraint to our freedom is our facticity (the stuff we don't choose like being born and having a certain name and parents).

Aquí la conclusión del capítulo. 

Thursday, October 20, 2022

¿Qué es un final paper?

El final paper es 

filosofía hecha carne, es 

argumento y contra argumento, es

el método socrático, es

la manera de pensar científica, es

la cuidadosa elaboración del mejor argumento, es

la justa, coherente prolija y metódica elaboración del contra argumento, es

como dijo Diógenes, sin contra argumento no hay propiamente argumento, es 

muestra fehaciente de ese portento socrático llamado DIÄLOGO, es

ENSAYO, peso, sentido, balanza, es EXORCISMO, es

prosa analítica, especulativa, interpretativa, es

un salto de la razón, es

manifestación de la sabiduría.

 

 



Monday, September 12, 2022

Causal & logical possibility excercises

1. It's logically possible that 2 + 2 = 5

2. Is is logically possible for Fidel Castro to become president of the United States in 1959?

3.  It's logically possible for a deductive argument to have true premises and a false conclusion. 

4. It's causally possible to travel back in time.

5. Is it causally possible for two parallel lines to meet at an infinite point?

6. Is having four sides in a square logically necessary?

7. It's not causally possible for an animal that lacks a vertebral column (or backbone) to be a vertebrate.

8. Here's a problem sample: 

It's probably true that whenever (A) a baby is born, (B) someone somewhere in the world will die on the same day. But this is hardly surprising given the number of people dying and being born each day. Any connection between the two is purely an accident.

In order to understand if the connection between A and B is an accident, it is essential to consider a counterexample. Can you think of that counterexample? 

9. Is it causally possible for a father not to be a parent? 

10. Is the presence of oxygen causally necessary for the proper functioning of the brain?

11. Being an adult of over 18 years old is legally sufficient for having the right to vote.

12. The presence of a witness is legally necessary for a valid marriage.

Tuesday, September 6, 2022

Homework 3 (causation) Phi 2010 Honors Fall 2023

Read this short Britannica entry

1. So, recounting:  

A powerful tsunami destroyed the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant’s power supply and cooling systems, causing three reactors to melt and spew large amounts of radiation. Highly contaminated cooling water applied to the damaged reactors has leaked continuously into building basements and mixed with groundwater. Initial reports of casualties following the tsunami at Fukushima’s power plant put the death toll in the hundreds, with hundreds more missing. 

Was the tsunami the cause of the Daiichi Nuclear Plant’s accident? Yes, No? Explain your answer one way or the other. 


1. We find this declaration: 

“We have no evidence that the crew did anything wrong,” Homendy said.

(a) Does that mean there’s no human cause linked to the accident? Explain. 

(b) Are safety regulations, in this case, solely dependent upon human error? Explain. 


2. Read this paragraph: 

The overheating triggered an alarm, which caused the train’s engineer to immediately apply the brakes to bring the train to the stop. An automatic emergency braking system also came into effect. 

Which of these two caused the train to stop, the overheating or/and the automatic emergency breaking?  

(a) The overheating caused the train’s engineer to immediately apply the brakes to bring the train to a stop, or (b) simultaneously, “an automatic emergency braking system also came into effect? 

3. Read this sentence: 

“There were no reported fatalities or injuries caused directly by the derailment, and responders were able to mitigate the fire within two days.” 

What do you think “caused directly by the derailment” mean? 

4. Read this paragraph: 

“The evacuation order was lifted on Feb. 8, five days after the derailment. Since then, residents have reported widespread concern about the safety of East Palestine’s air and water. Some say they have experienced headaches or rashes. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources reported that some 3,500 fish had died following the derailment in nearby waterways.” 

Do you think the headaches and rashes are the effects of the accident? If so, what is the cause (as given in the reading? 

5. Read this paragraph: 

“The operators of a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous chemicals near East Palestine, Ohio, earlier this month tried to stop the train after a wheel bearing overheated to a dangerous degree, the National Transportation Safety Board said.” 

Can one say that “trying to stop the train after a wheel bearing overheated to a dangerous degree” is the cause of the derailment?

Monday, September 5, 2022

Consensus proven wrong (proves paradigm shifts in science)

1543 – The transition in cosmology from a Ptolemaic cosmology to a Copernican one.

Two observations seemed to support the idea that Earth was the center of the Universe: First, from anywhere on Earth, the Sun appears to revolve around Earth once per day. While the Moon and the planets have their own motions, they also appear to revolve around Earth about once per day. Second, Earth seems to be unmoving from the perspective of an earthbound observer; it feels solid, stable, and stationary. 

1543 – The acceptance of the work of Andreas Vesalius, whose work De humani corporis fabrica corrected the numerous errors in the previously-held system created by Galen.

1687 – The transition in mechanics from Aristotelian mechanics to classical mechanics.

According to Aristotle there are four elements that make up everything in the terrestrial spheres: earth, air, fire and water (Aristotle borrows this from Empedocles proving there's already a consensus on this matter. Aristotle held that the heavens are made of a special weightless and incorruptible, unchangeable fifth element called "aether". For your information, "aether."

1718-present. – The transition from the luminiferous "aether" present in space to electromagnetic radiation in spacetime.

Go to this Wikipedia article.  I want to contrast the following statements by leading scientists:

Newton: "Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them?"

Einstein: We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. 

One more: Most physicists in the 20th century concluded that this early modern notion of a luminiferous aether was not a useful concept (Einstein however stated that this consideration was too radical and too anticipatory and that his theory of relativity still needed the presence of a medium with certain properties). There is simultaneously consensus and disensus. So is there an "aether" after all? We could call this an unsettled case in scientific endeavor.

1780s – The acceptance of Lavoisier's theory of chemical reactions and combustion in place of phlogiston theory, known as the chemical revolution.

As crazy as it seems the phlogiston theory stated that phlogisticated substances are substances that contain phlogiston and dephlogisticate when burned. The theory springs from Empedocles and Aristotle. At the time, fire was thought of as a substance and burning was seen as a process of decomposition which applied only to compounds. Empirical evidence shows that burning is not always accompanied by a loss of material and a better theory was needed to account for this. Thus, the phlogiston theory. Dephlogisticating is the process of releasing stored phlogiston, which is absorbed by the air. Growing plants then absorb this phlogiston, which is why air does not spontaneously combust and also why plant matter burns as well as it does. Thus phlogiston accounted for combustion via a process that was opposite to that of the oxygen theory. In general, substances that burned in air were said to be rich in phlogiston; the fact that combustion soon ceased in an enclosed space was taken as clear-cut evidence that air had the capacity to absorb only a finite amount of phlogiston. 

1826 – The discovery of hyperbolic geometry.

In the 19th century, hyperbolic geometry was explored extensively by Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky, János Bolyai, Carl Friedrich Gauss and Franz Taurinus. Unlike their predecessors, who just wanted to eliminate the parallel postulate from the axioms of Euclidean geometry, these authors realized they had discovered a new geometry.[10][11] Gauss wrote in an 1824 letter to Franz Taurinus that he had constructed it, but Gauss did not publish his work. Gauss called it "non-Euclidean geometry"[12] causing several modern authors to continue to consider "non-Euclidean geometry" and "hyperbolic geometry" to be synonyms. Taurinus published results on hyperbolic trigonometry in 1826, argued that hyperbolic geometry is self consistent, but still believed in the special role of Euclidean geometry. The complete system of hyperbolic geometry was published by Lobachevsky in 1829/1830, while Bolyai discovered it independently and published in 1832. 

1880 – The germ theory of disease vs. Galen's miasma theory.

The miasma theory (also called the miasmatic theory) is an obsolete medical theory that held that diseases—such as cholera, chlamydia, or the Black Death—were caused by a miasma (μίασμα, Ancient Greek for "pollution"), a noxious form of "bad air", also known as night air. 

Empirical evidence: The miasma theory was consistent with the observation that disease was associated with poor sanitation, and hence foul odors, and that sanitary improvements reduced disease. However, it was inconsistent with the findings arising from microbiology and bacteriology in the later 19th century, which eventually led to the adoption of the germ theory of disease, although consensus was not reached immediately. Concerns over sewer gas, which was a major component of the miasma theory developed by Galen, and brought to prominence by the "Great Stink" in London in the summer of 1858, led proponents of the theory to observe that sewers enclosed the refuse of the human bowel, which medical science had discovered could teem with typhoid, cholera, and other microbes. 

It was not until 1876 that Robert Koch proved that the bacterium Bacillus anthracis caused anthrax, which brought a definitive end to miasma theory.   

1919 – The transition between the worldview of Newtonian gravity and general relativity.

1964 - The discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation leads to the big bang theory being accepted over the steady state theory in cosmology.

1965 - The acceptance of plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes.