Guidelines for our in-class first-draft peer-revision session (you become teachers now)

Let's peer-review our drafts! 

25 MINUTES EACH PARTICIPANT. STOP BEING NICE. BE TOUGH AND WRITE DOWN ANYTHING YOU FIND IN NEED OF CORRECTION. THIS IS ACTUALLY GOOD ADVICE. 

1- Proper heading, top, left-hand side, 

Bertha Gonzalez
First Draft Philosophy Paper, 
Phi 2010 Honors MWF

2-DONT FORGET! Times New Roman pt. 12 font, double spaced, indented paragraphs, separate page for bibliography. The bibliography page is titled Bibliography. 

Title: middle, bold. You must present a title that represents a distillation of the content of your paper.

NO FRONT-AND-BACK DRAFTS!

MATTERS OF CLARITY 

3- FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS: Two-point thesis composed of first: declaration-sentence followed by an explanation sentence. Same with the counter! Be clear and succinct. Less is more. These thesis and counter-paragraphs don't need to be long.  

4- Proper prefacing of each paragraph. The reader must understand "who owns the paragraph," (begin with either "advocate" or "critic"). Whether "same-sex marriage advocates" vs "same-sex marriage critics" "fast-food advocates" vs "fast-food critics," or "government surveillance advocates" vs "government surveillance critics," etc. It doesn't matter if it sounds cacophonous.

4.5- Internal coherence: Check paragraphs 3, and 5 for arguments 1 and 2 of your thesis and paragraphs 4, and 6 for arguments 1 and 2 of the counter. 

There must be a correspondence between these paragraphs. Example: if you find anything in paragraph 5 that doesn't correspond to your second argument in your thesis, the draft suffers from internal coherence. Pay attention to this point.

5- Argument vs. quote ratio (70% for argument, 30% for quotes). I will reject paragraphs that are just copied and pasted. I need your voice. We've talked about how to make a copy/paste paragraph look admissible.

6- How to present a quote in a paragraph: Each quote must be properly prefaced, what I call "dropping quotes" issues! 

a) You must prepare the reader for each quote by providing context for each quotation. b) Attribute each quotation to its source: tell the reader who is writing the quote and job description, c) Avoid "he/she said" USE THESE SYNONYMS INSTEAD: she/he adds, remarks, replies, states, comments, points out, argues, suggests, proposes, declares, opines, etc. d) lead the quote with a colon, example:

Penn State University Professor Oakenshot denies Marx's claim that capitalism causes poverty when he declares: "Poverty predates capitalism by two thousand and odd years of civilization." or,  John Beherman, professor of Biology at Berkeley University argues that____________" instead of just dropping the quote without introduction. (Oakenshot, 46).

MATTERS OF CONVENTION

7- Proper bibliography MLA source presentation 

a) Include in the text the first item that appears in the Work Cited entry that corresponds to the citation (e.g. author name, article name, website name, film name).

b) No URLs in-text. Only provide partial URLs titles, i.e., domain name, like CNN.com or Forbes.com as opposed to http://www.cnn.com or http://www.forbes.com.

MATTERS OF STYLE

8- Check for "too-wordy" sentences. This is a no-no. Sentences should be short and clear. If the sentences are long, cut them in two.

9- Checkmark for improper interjection of thesis into counter. Each side has a paragraph to expose its point. You are not to express your view inside the counter's paragraph.

10- Check mark for colloquialism. These are prohibited:

"you" (one), "kinda" (kind of), "it is like," (similar to, such as), "okay" or "OK," "real" & "really" (very), "sorta" or "sort of" (rather, somewhat), "pretty" (very), "anyways"(anyway), "a lot," (several, many), "kids"(children),  "cops" (policeman), "guys" (men)... etc.

11- Check mark for "fillers":  "basically," "absolutely", "definitely" "certainly," "for all intents and purposes," "due to the fact that" (use "because"),   etc.

12- Check mark for redundant adjectives: "totally unique," "completely finished," "thoroughly complete," "productively useful," etc,

Repaso para el Examen Final

Moral knowledge & consensus.

Notes on Egoism and Hedonism.

Utilitarianism. 

Kantian Ethics.

Moral Traditionalism.

Aristotle's virtue morality.

Aristotle's Virtue morality

here's a video. 

click here for more information.

quotes by Aristotle.

My notes on Moral Traditionalism

here's a video.

 click here for more.

Kantian ethics

let's look at this video,

here are my notes on Kant's categorical imperative,
my notes on Kant's second formulation,

what is self-respect?

First drafts guidelines. Observe them!

1- Times New Roman p. 12
2- Heading, left-hand side:

Doe, John 
Final Paper First Draft 
Phi 2010 Honors 

3- Title, centered, bold,
4- Draft body: double-spaced,
5- Indent each new paragraph,
6- "Works cited" or "Bibliography" on a separate page, following MLA protocols (with last day of revision for digital sources),
7- All drafts must be STAPLED,

My notes on Utilitarianism

click here for more information,

Ethics, Homework #14

 Pincha aquí.

Hedonism and Ethical Egoism

Here are my notes on Hedonism.

Here are my notes on Ethical Egoism.

Homework #7 (CHAPTER 3, ETHICS)

Questions 1-4 are taken from this post.

1. Is there moral knowledge? Explain with one example from your daily life. Think of a good/or bad action coming from a friend (no less than 50 words). 

2. What are moral facts? (in your own words, avoid copying my text).

3. In what sense is Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People a masterpiece? Is this moral knowledge?

4. Why is it that Best Consensus cannot be produced overnight? Is Best Consensus infallible? Explain your answer. 

Questions 5-7 are based on this lecture. 

5. a) What is the difference between morality and etiquette. 

b) Provide an example of each from your own life based on the definitions.  

c) Why is etiquette (LI) so important for Confucius?

6. Morality and law are not the same, in what manner? Again, from your personal experience, bring up an instance when there's a law you consider immoral and wish it would change (or else, something immoral in need of a law.   

7. Why is slavery wrong now in 2024? Why was it not wrong in, say, 424 B.C.?

Defensible moral judgments, moral values, etiquette, law, cultural relativism

click here for more information,

If you can make it...

 

How to conquer mathphobia

 Click this link. 

How do you know an argument is good?

 

El secreto está en encontrar un principio fuerte. Por ejemplo, la regla de oro.

Haz con otros lo que quisieras que te hicieran a ti. 

¿Cómo sabemos que el principio es fuerte? 

1. Es claro (es decir, no es contradictorio)  

2. Es proporcional. 

3. Es justo (aplica a uno y a todos).

Apliquemos ahora el principio en el caso de ejemplos particulares de los pecados llamados veniales: adulterio, falso testimonio, hurto, robo, malversación, perjurio, chisme, schadenfreude, la gula, la pereza. 

Por ejemplo, la gula y la pereza son pecados que me tocamn a mí y nadie más. ¿Cómo aplicar la ley de oro? Es muy sencillo. Yo = Yo. 

Volvamos a la regla. Lo que me aplica a mí me aplica porque es universal y reversible. Siendo universal me aplica por igual. Si aplico la regla de oro a mi mismo, no debo tratarme meramente como medio para un fin. 

Ahí tienen la respuesta a asuntos más polémicos, como la guerra, la pena de muerte, el aborto, etc.

philosophy paper second assignment (how to start the discussion, 4 paragraphs)

This second assignment takes care of four paragraphs.

This is an example. Please, do not copy, and do not submit anything underlined in color. I do it just to make a point. 

The first two paragraphs are the most important in your paper.  These are theses paragraphs. 

These two paragraphs are YOUR PROGRAM. Thesis and a counter-thesis: Each thesis and counter-thesis contains two points. You present the point and explain it. When you explain, you give reasons for holding the point. One paragraph each. 

ORDER OF PARAGRAPHS:

FIRST PARAGRAPH: EXPOSITION OF THESIS AND COUNTERTHESIS

SECOND PARAGRAH: THESIS FIRST ARGUMENT.

THIRD PARAGRAPH: COUNTER'S FIRST ARGUMENT.

FOURTH PARAGRAPH: THESIS SECOND ARGUMENT.

FIFTH PARAGRAPH: COUNTER'S SECOND ARGUMENT.

SIXTH PARAGRAPH: THESIS REBUTTAL OF COUNTER'S REBUTTAL.

LAST PARAGRAPH: A SHORT CONCLUSION 

whatever is in this color are either thesis or counter,
whatever is in this color is the first point, with an explanation,
whatever is in this color is the second point with an explanation,
_______________________________________

FISRT PARAGRAPH

                  In this paper I argue against the prohibition of marijuana. First, marijuana prohibition must be weighed against the loss of personal freedom. The point is that our laws should take into account citizens' right to self-determination. Second, the War on Drugs has only served the immediate interests of politicians. By taking a moral stand against recreational drugs or fighting the evils caused by the illegal drug trade, they have only increased their popularity among constituents. 

(You should add relevant data supporting each point and properly cite it as END NOTE).

SECOND PARAGRAPH

    Prohibitionists disagree. They believe that marijuana is an addictive drug, which increases consumption and dependency. According to Dr. John Dickens, citing a 10 year study from Stanford University, "addiction is a result of marijuana's power to induce dependency" (New York Times, 2004).  In addition, marijuana is a gateway to other illicit and more harmful substances, thus increasing the possibility of committing crimes. It is a fact that addiction is generally sustained within a social network linked to organized crime (Center for Drug Studies, Catalog A, 2010). 

_______

Now comes the discussion. In paragraph 3, you go back to your thesis. You flesh out the first point, bringing in outside experts and relevant data. In paragraph 4, you take the counterthesis and do the same thing you did in paragraph 3. 
_______ 

THIRD PARAGRAPH

Abolitionists believe that prohibition must be weighed against our loss of personal freedoms. They argue that citizens should be able to choose what they want with their bodies, including the recreational use of drugs, as long as they do not harm others. Such arguments often cite British philosopher John Stuart Mill's harm principle, which states that "the state had no right to intervene to prevent individuals from doing something that harmed them if no harm was thereby done to the rest of society." (Mill, Liberty, 75). Mill's harm principle is designed to restrict the scope of government restrictions on personal liberty. Legal theorist Ronald Dworkin states that social disapproval or dislike for a person's actions isn't enough to justify intervention by the government unless they actually harm someone (New York Times, 2013).

FOURTHT PARAGRAPH

Prohibitionists reject this idea. They bring relevant statistics: According to recent data, marijuana remains addictive, with 25% of recurrence among people ages 16 to 25 (Buck-Norris, 17). Marijuana remains intractable not because it's more addictive than other drugs but because addicts are more reluctant to let it go (Casas & Weimer, 33). Marijuana happens to be affordable and available in our inner cities. Dr. John Samaras, a professor of psychology at Penn Sate University, argues that parental substance dependence and abuse can have profound effects on children, including child abuse and neglect. (Samaras, Drug Addiction in America, 44).

From consensus to best consensus

Our diverging ideas of diet.

Hormone therapy.

Critical care.

Historiography.

Physics.

Chemistry.

Here is a list of accepted consensuses proven wrong later. 

Homework #6 (Capítulo 5) PHI 2010 HONORS, 2024

1. Briefly state the following views concerning free will (p. 253):

a) Hard determinism.

b) Incompatibilism.

c) Indeterminism.

d) Compatibilism.

e) Libertarianism.

Now, contrast a) with b), d), and e)

2. I know it's too early (and you may switch sides), but which view do you feel has more explanatory power (always look for "detractors")? 

3. Briefly state Baron d'Holbach's argument?

4. Why is William James' Indeterminism problematic?

5. Explain the Compatibilist "could do otherwise argument. Do you find it plausible? Explain.

6. Does belief in free will matter? (p. 262) 

7. What's van Inwagen argument in favor of free will?

8. Explain Benjamin Libet's argument against free will. (p. 266) 

9. What is Jean Paul Sarttre's idea of profound (or radical) freedom? (p. 271, 272)

10. Look at the key terms on p. 277 (important definitions).

11. Imagina por un momento un sistema carcelario predeterminista tipo Clockwork Orange.

¿Cual sería el método para rehabilitar al criminal? ¿Crees que serían "recidivistas"? Y si lo fueran ¿qué hacer entonces?   

Aquí una conferencia interesante del neurólogo y profesor de Stanford Robert Sapolsky que me mandó Isabella. En ella lidia con el difícil tópico de la depresión. ¿Creen que Sapolsky es predeterminista?  

Final paper (How to argue a point)

click here for assignment sample: how to argue a point.

Homework, Chapter 5

 Pincha aquí.

This is the list of my confirmed student assistants (¡muchas gracias!)

Manuel Martinez, 

Andrea Terrero, 

Gabriel Gamez, 

Aliane Castillo-Diaz, 

Paola Cuba Alvarez. 

Jesús Galarza.

Final paper's process

El final paper es acaso la parte más importante de mi clase. Me enorgullece la técnica que he desarrollado con años de enseñanza y feedback de mis estudiantes. 

Este es el proceso:  

1. first draft of the paper (noviembre 13)

2. second draft of the paper (IN CLASS ASSIGNMENT (diciembre 4)

between 1. and 2. there are these recommendations.

Aquí tienen mi receta de hummus (bueno, de mi abuela)

click here for more info,

Cosensus to Best Consensus (from Impetus to Newtons Second Law

Look at my diagram above. See the concentric circles? we have INFO, Consensus and Best Consensus.

How do we get there? Through a process of iteration, the previous consensus is improved by the new one. 

What is the best consensus of inertia right before Newton's Second Law?

Before Newton, the accepted law was Aristotle's Impetus Theory. Let's start with this.

INFO

1. Aristotle (Fourth Century BC): distinguished between "natural motion" (such as objects falling due to gravity) and "violent motion" (caused by external forces). Natural motion was thought to be due to the tendency of objects to reach their natural place (e.g., heavy objects falling down). 

What's the problem? The impetus theory lacked a clear concept of Inertia: 

Objects were thought to naturally come to rest without a sustained force. 

Jean Buridan: Professor at the University of Paris Aristotle's theory was improved during the Middle Ages). What is Impetus? The impetus theory, developed by medieval scholars like Jean Buridan, attempted to explain projectile motion and address the deficiencies in Aristotelian physics. It posited that an object in motion had an internal "impetus" imparted by the force that set it in motion, which would gradually dissipate, causing the object to slow down and stop. 

CONSENSUS 

Buridan's formula: impetus = weight x velocity

Problem: By discounting the possibility of any resistance either due to a contrary inclination to move in any opposite direction or due to any external resistance, he concluded their impetus was therefore not corrupted by any resistance.  So, the problem is that impetus theory lacked the mathematical rigor to describe motion quantitatively. 

ITERATION: So by the year 1614, Kepler introduces the concept of inertia in this book.

BEST CONSENSUS: Now, by 1687, we finally get to Newton's Second Law!  

As you can see, consensus doesn't mean truth. Many instances of consensus have led nowhere. Some forms of consensus, like the one above, lead to a happy ending.

Paper proposal sample (next Thursday, october 17)

1- Heading (in Times New Roman, point 12). Left hand side: write your name (last name first), "Philosophy Paper Proposal."
2- Write the title in bold letters, middle alignment.
3- The first paragraph has your thesis, followed by a brief explanation supporting it. The second paragraph has the counter thesis and contains a brief explanation supporting it. So and so depends of your paper topic, i.e., Me too critics, Pro-choice advocates, Climate skeptic advocates, etc. 

4- Try to mimic this model. This is how you learn to be clear and succinct.
   
______________________________________________

Rodriguez, Juan 
Philosophy Paper Proposal

Phi 2010 Honors

  Even with factory farms, animals should be protected against abuse

          In this paper, I try to prove that animals being raised in factory farms in America deserve a better treatment. My argument shows the public health risks associated with unregulated factory farming, while stressing that animal cruelty is ethically wrong. 

         So and So advocates disagree by stating that our present regulations are necessary to offer much needed food products at competitive market prices. 

Homework #5 (chapter 4) 2024

Section 4.1 p. 223

#1, #3, #4

Is property dualism a better theory than Descartes' dualism? Explain.

#4 p. 224

Section 4. 2 p. 229 

#5

Section 4. 3 p. 233

#1, #3, #4,

Section 4. 4, p. 241

#1, #2, 

Section 4. 4  p. 245

#1, #4,

Law of Unintended Consequences (due to the limits of our knowledge)

The complexity of society supervenes on individuals and societies (of societies) supervene on societies. 

The reason for supervenience is that we cannot stop messing things up. In economics, history, and system theory, this is known as Law of Unintended Consequences (Adam Smith's "invisible hand" in economics in the link's page's second paragraph). 

Here are some examples from History: 

*Spain's discovery of the New World and gold actually made Spanish mercantilism stronger (more money, more mismanagement), which made for more war (England, France, etc.), which ended up depleting the very sources of wealth. Spain became poorer and weaker. 

*Antibiotics are one of the significant medical advances, but their overprescription has resulted in the development of antibiotic-resistant diseases. 

*The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia announces a new era of human equality and progress. Instead, it brings the horrors of the gulag labor camps and the purges of the 1930s under Stalin. *The discovery of nuclear fission, crucial for nuclear power, simultaneously became the main ingredient for the nuclear arms race during the Cold War. 

*More recently, Germany’s "green" policies. In 2000, Germany passed a major green initiative Promulgated by a Socialist-Green coalition government. It forced providers to purchase renewable energy at exorbitant fixed prices and feed that power through their grids for twenty years. In 2011, stubborn Angela Merkel doubled down and shut down eight reactors in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima disaster (which was caused by a tsunami –a threat Germany isn’t exposed to!)😅 "Green power" is so unreliable that Germany is constructing four new coal plants to replace the nuclear energy it has taken offline. And most of these coal-fired facilities lignite! which is strip-mined and emits nearly 35% more carbon dioxide than hard coal!

Here are some additional variables to the Law of Unintended Consequences:

There are so many variables:

1- Ignorance! We can't tell the distant future. 

2- Errors in our models (remember induction?) What worked in the past doesn't have to apply to the current situation. 

3- Immediate interests override long-term interests (it's called short-termism). Though someone's long-termism may be someone else's short-termism!

4- Basic values that may require or prohibit specific actions even if the long-term result might be unfavorable (these long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values). 

5- Self-defeating prophecy, or the fear of some consequence, which drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs; thus, the non-occurrence of the problem is not anticipated. 

This is also known as the Munchausen paradox.

6- Grupthink is definitely a candidate.

Review Capítulo 1 y 6 (Honors, 2024)

Capítulo 1, Introducción y Lógica

La filosofía y sus ramas.

Presocráticos.

What is truth (three criteria)

Argumentos deductivos e inductivos.

Necessary and sufficient conditions.

Logical and causal possibility.

Causa y efecto.

Thought experiment.

Fallacies.

Thought experiment.

Capítulo 6, Epistemología

Consensus and Best Consensus.

Different versions of knowledge.

Breve historia de la epistemología (skepticism, rationalism, empiricism, and kantian theory)

Philosophy of mind videos

An introduction to the philosophy of the mind.

Cartesian dualism. 

This is about functionalism.

Lecture on Thomas Nagel's "What is like to be a bat."

Searle's Chinese room thought experiment.

chapter 4 philosophy of mind

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 brings an interesting proof: 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?

Conuterexamples to Logical behaviorism: 

1. The Perfect Pretender Thought Experiment ● A person who fakes pain and doesn't feel it. ● He acts/behaves as if he was in pain. According to this counterexample: 

Having the right behavioral dispositions is not sufficient for someone to be in that mental state. 

2. Putnam's Spartan Thought Experiment  ● the spartan has the ability to suppress all involuntary pain behavior though  they feel pain. This thought experiment undermines logical behaviorism because the theory would have us believe if the Spartan doesn't ACT as if they are in pain, then they are not in pain, which 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: 

1.  [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, 3. privileged. They are felt from the inside. Physical properties are 1- public (third person point of view), and 2- objective.

2.  Lewis pained martian (llamémoslo "el marciano adolorido"). 

Lewis ilustra que un marciano puede sentir dolor sin un cerebro. Encontramos un marciano que llega a la tierra en una nave espacial. Su cerebro es hidráulico (contiene agua) no neuronas como nosotros. La plomería del agua pasa por todo su cuerpo. Es decir, es fisiológicamente distinto a nosotros. Cuando pinchas sus C-fibers (no tiene ninguna), lo que sucede es que una parte de su cavidad craneana se inflama. Eso quiere decir que tiene dolor.  Y lo sabemos porque se retuerce, su cara se desfigura en una mueca, tal y como ocurre a los humanos. Es decir, siente dolor, pero carece de los estados neurofisiológicos correspondientes. Es decir, tener un cerebro no es una condición necesaria para tener dolor. 

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:  

1. [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.  

2. 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.

MENTAL STATES ARE IRREDUCIBLE TO BEHAVIORAL STATES, TO BRAIN STATES, TO FUNCTIONAL STATES. MENTAL STATES ARE IRREDUCIBLE. WE CALL PROPERTY OF MENTAL STATES A PRIMITIVE PROPERTY.  This means that Mental States are autonomous processes caused by physical phenomena at an EMERGENT LEVEL.

THE ROLE OF INTENTIONALITY

intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. 

intentionality means we have mental representations with contents. we talk to others about these contents we draw symbols or pictures for the purpose of conveying our mental states. these contents also have intentionality. 

"you are my best companion", "I feel so lonely", "this pizza is amazing!", "I love this song because my grandmother used to sing it", "do you smell the salt in the air?" "wow, the sky and the sea are so blue," "this is such a beautiful landscape,"   

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 (baja presión, agua caliente, lluvias, aire frío y caliente, tormenta) ← 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 brain-systemic model for the mind,

Aquí otra opción al asunto: el pansiquismo. 

2 + 2 = 5

La suma del título (arriba) tiene un pasado notorio.

Aquí forman tremendo ruido y no arreglan nada.  

Aquí by reductio resulta interesante, pero queda coja.

Aquí el mío por reducción al absurdo (sin usar otra cosa que adición y números enteros): 

Probar que  Θ 2 + 2 = 5

1. Supongamos 2 + 2 = 4 es falso.

2. Entonces,  (1 +1 ) + (1 +1 ) = 4  Por asociatividad.

3. Se tiene,     2 + 2 = 4

Sin embargo, dado Θ,  

           2 + 2 ≠ 4 

_________________________

No hay nada que añadir. El resultado es equivalente a esta pintura de Magritte:

 

  

Homework #4 (Epistemology, 2024)

1. Explain what kind of knowledge: correspondence, pragmatic or coherence is being employed here:

Recomiendas el Restaurante X a un amigo. El te pregunta "cómo es la comida". Respondes "¡excelente! ¿Qué clase de conocimiento has empleado? a) Correspondece, b) pragmaatic,  c) coherence.

2. ¿Is justification more important than explication? 

3. ¿What are the general requirements for knowledge?

4. ¿Can you have a true belief without having knowledge? Provide an example. 

5. Briefly answer: ¿Is suspension of belief similar to doubt? ¿Is it preferable to suspend than falsely believe? ¿How can you tell? 

6. From the textbook. 6.2 on Rationalism p. 289.  

7.  Is number five an objective entity for Plato? Explain. 

8. Briefly explain Plato's Rationalism. 

9. What are Plato's FORMS?

10. Briefly comment on Descartes' doubt and Descartes' certainty.

From Textbook, exercise 6.2, page 301. Answer  #1, #2, #4, 

chapter 4 (the philosophy of mind)

watch this sort of funny video as an introduction to the problem, 

click here for my notes to chapter 4,

Thought experiment

A thought experiment: is the description of a possible situation in which the concept should apply if the theory in question is true.

Counterexample: A counterexample that runs counter or conflicts with a theory.

Correlation doesn't mean causation

Correlation: A mutual relationship or connection between two variables. 

When there is a positive correlation, an increase in one variable is associated with an increase in the other. (For instance, scientists might correlate an increase in time spent watching TV with an increase in risk of obesity.) 

Where there is an inverse correlation, an increase in one value is associated with a decrease in the other. (Scientists might correlate an increase in TV watching with a decrease in time spent exercising each week.) 

A correlation between two variables does not necessarily mean one is causing the other. Thus, is not sufficient for causation.

Different possibilities of causation

1. Direct causation: A causes B (direct causation). 

The pool stick striking the billiard ball causing it to jump. 

2. Reverse causation: B causes A (reverse causation). 

The correlation between recreational drug use and psychiatric disorders. Perhaps the drugs cause the disorders, or else, people use drugs to self medicate for preexisting conditions, which brings causes the disorder. 

Children that watch a lot of TV are the most violent. Clearly, TV makes children more violent. 

This could easily be the other way round; that is, violent children like watching more TV than less violent ones!       

3. Concomitant causes: A and B both cause C 

In the case of COVID 19, a person with a preexisting condition. John gets Covid, but he's 76 years old, and has a heart condition. 

Is COVID a direct cause of death? 

Before we answer let's keep in mind these 4 conditions: 

1. COVID must precede John's death (IT DOES), 

2. It's nearly impossible for COVID being there and John not dying (FALSE, John could survive the COVID and his existing heart failure and not die). At this point the answer is already NO, because we need the four conditions together, but revise the last two:

3. the cause must make a difference (IT DOES to some extent). 

4. there is no common cause (AND HERE THERE IS: the heart condition!). 

So, this shows clearly that COVID IS CANNOT BE THE DIRECT CAUSE OF DEATH.

4. Cyclic causation: A causes B and B causes A 

In predator-prey relationship, predator numbers affect prey numbers, but prey numbers (i.e. food supply of predators) also affect predator numbers.

5. Indirect causation: A causes C which causes B  

6. Fringe case: A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other. 

Example (from psychology): The relationship between anxiety and shyness shows a statistical value (strength of correlation) of +.59. Therefore, it may be concluded that shyness, causally speaking, influences anxiety.

Yet, there is a catch, the so-called "self-consciousness score", with a sharper correlation (+.73) where  shyness brings up a possible "third variable" known as "self-consciousness". So now we have shyness, anxiety and self-consciousness together. When three such closely related measures are found, it suggests that each may be a cluster of correlated values each influencing one another to some extent. 

So, the first conclusion above (in gray) is false.Ishmael hits Ahab with his car. Ahab is rushed to the hospital and is sent into surgery. During the course of the operation, the surgeon is careless and causes Ahab more injuries. 

No causation: There is no connection between A and B (coincidence)

See the two curves in the chart above (consumption of margarine and the divorce rate in Maine over 10-year period). As if Americans' fondness for margarine correlated with the divorce rate in Maine. This is an instance of two unrelated data sets showing a coincidental pattern.

Confounding (in statistics): A situation where one or more unrecognized variables (conditions or events) were responsible for some effect. 

This could give the faulty impression that the effect was due to something else. Confounding often occurs when researchers did not “control” for the possibility that other variables were or could be at work. 

Example:  The estimated risk ratio for CVD (cardiovascular diseases) in obese as compared to non-obese persons is RR = 0.153/0.86 = 1.79, suggesting that obese persons are 1.79 times as likely to develop CVD compared to non-obese persons. 

However, it is well known that the risk of CVD also increases with age. Could any (or all) of the apparent association between obesity and incident CVD be attributable to age? If the obese group in our sample is older than the non-obese group, then all or part of the increased CVD risk in obese persons could possibly due to the increase in age rather than their obesity. If age is another risk factor for CVD, and if obese and non-obese persons differ in age, then our estimate of the association between obesity and CVD will be overestimated, because of the additional burden of being older. Thus, age meets the definition of a confounder (i.e., it is associated with the primary risk factor(obesity) and the outcome (CVD). In fact, in this data set, subjects who were 50+ were more likely to be obese (200/400 = 0.500) as compared to subjects younger than (100/600=0.167), as demonstrated by the table below.   

different kinds of knowledge and examples

1. knowledge by acquaintance: knowledge of what it is to have a certain experience.

example: knowledge of what it is like to be pregnant, knowledge of how it feels to have a heart attack, etc.

2. performative knowledge: knowledge of how to perform a certain activity. 

example: knowledge of how to dance tango or how to ride a bicycle.

3. propositional knowledge: knowledge of whether a proposition is true or false. 

examples:  

"Napoleon died in 1821," 

"John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963,"

" F = ma"

"A planet is an astronomical body orbiting a star,"  

4. a priori knowledge: knowledge that can be acquired independent of experience. 

examples: 

"brothers are male siblings," 

"5 is a prime number," 

"two points determine a line," 

"if two lines intersect, then they intersect in exactly one point."

5. a posteriori knowledge: knowledge based on experience. 

examples: 

"all mammals are vertebrate," 

"water boils down at 100 degrees celsius," 

"Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system",

"A mushroom is the fleshy, spore-bearing fruiting body of a fungus",

"Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter was born and raised in Houston, Texas,"

6. analytic proposition: a proposition that is a logical truth or can be turned into a logical truth by substituting synonym for synonym. 

examples: 

"all bachelors are unmarried males," 

"all triangles have three sides,"  

7. synthetic proposition: a proposition whose predicate concept is not contained in its subject concept but related. 

examples: 

"All creatures with hearts have kidneys,"

"An invertebrate is a cool-blooded animal with no backbone."

homework #1, 2024

la tarea comprende los dos posts de los presocráticos y la filosofia y sus ramas. 

1. what is archê? and why is the central question of the presocratics? 

2. why does Thales believe the archë of the universe is water? 

3. Heraclitus and Parmenides believe opposite things about archë. In your opinion, is there a way to bring together these seemingly opposite explanations?

4. which of these theories do you find most interesting and why? 

5. what are the main branches of philosophy. explain each one. 

6. though it's a bit soon to choose, do you have a favorite branch? why?  

Homework #2 (deduction, induction), 2024

Are these deductive or inductive?

1. The sum of the interior angles of any triangle is 180°. In triangle #1, angle A is 30°, angle B is 90°. Therefore, angle C is 60°. 
2. If I get an A, then I will pass this course. Odds are, I will make a B. So, I probably won't pass this course. 
3. The platypus is not a mammal (google & find out) because no mammal lays eggs, and the female platypus does. (Check this Britannica discussion, defending that the platypus is a mammal)
4. The last time I ate here, the shrimp dish I ordered was disgusting. It must be the case that this restaurant buys lousy seafood. 
5. The sign on the candy machine reads "Out of Order." The candy machine must be broken. 

are these valid or invalid? 

1. If it rained, the streets are wet. The streets are wet, so it must have rained. 
2. If Richard Roe is willing to testify then he's innocent. He's not willing to testify therefore he's not innocent. 
3. If Bogotá is north of New Orleans and New Orleans is north of Mexico City, then Bogota is north of Mexico City. 

are these strong or weak? 

4. Every day you've lived has been followed by another day in which you've been alive. Therefore, everyday you ever will live will be followed by another day in which you are alive. 
5. Nobel prize-winning biologist Herbert Ralls says that chlorinated hydrocarbons in our water supply constitute a major threat to the public health. Since no scientists disagree with him on this point. Accordingly, we conclude that the presence of these chemicals is a threat.
6. Every day you've ever lived has been a day before tomorrow, so, every day you will ever live will be a day before tomorrow. 

Homework #1

1. a) Trata de explicar en tus palabras qué quiere decir Sócrates con su famoso argumento de "una vida sin examen". (pág. 8)

b) Crees que en tu caso (una persona joven que aún no tiene 25 años) este consejo aplica? Sea "sí" o "no" tu respuesta, explica por qué. 

2. Qué crees quiere decir Paul Tillich con esta cita: Astonishment is the root of philosophy?  (pág. 11)

3. Cuál es tu preferido de los presocráticos. Explica por qué.  (págs. 12, 13) 

SOBRE LA HISTORIA Y SUS ACHAQUES

Salvador Dalí, La persistencia de la memoria, 1931

alFredoTriFf

Estudiante: ¿Quién eres? 

Historia: Soy la historia. 

E: ¿Y qué eres? 

H: Soy la que da de sí. Me doy a los sentidos. 

E: ¿Y cómo haces? 

H: Muestro lo que soy. Tú me percibes por tu intelección y tu sentir. 

E: Es algo confuso. 

H: Para nada. Tú eres real. Mi sentir y yo somos reales en tu intelección. Cuando me ves, aparezco como algo “más allá”, distinta a lo que esperabas. Nunca apareceré como suficientemente “real”. Lidio con el pasado y lo pasado YA NO ES. 

E: ¿Entonces es un defecto de fábrica?

H: No creo, se trata de un asunto de composición: la realidad es dura, pero la historia es lo que FUE. Tú me percibes en la memoria, que es un tejido de aproximaciones. 

E: ¿Qué relación hay entre ambas? 

H: La historia es la memoria de la realidad, pero una realidad que YA NO ES.   

E: ¿Y el presente?

H: No existe historia alguna en lo instantáneo. 

E: Estás diciendo que no hay historia en el presente. 

H: Correcto. Pero hay un AÚN... que flota y desde ahí se asoma la dualidad. La incongruencia del momento es que continúa irrepetible.

E: ¿No decía el sabio Heráclito que todo cambia?  

H: La historia no puede ser cambio continuo por encima de la realidad, pues entonces no podría haber historia. 

E: ¿Se repite la historia? 

H: Se repite en sus generalidades. Pero toda generalidad es ciega a los detalles. 

E: ¿Cómo organizo todo eso en mi cabeza?

H: (Algo risueña) Es muy sencillo. La historia es una y se divide en épocas. Llamamos “época” a una secuencia de episodios. El episodio (del griego episodión) consta de dos momentos: “epi”, encima de, y “sodos”, hacia dentro. 

E: Ahora vivimos en un momento.

H: Exacto.   

E: ¿Y el episodio... qué contiene? 

H: El episodio no contiene la realidad propiamente, sino su informe en la memoria. La memoria y el episodio son oblicuos. 

E: ¿Oblicuos?

H: Ahora pienso ese maravilloso quinto postulado de Euclides aplicado a la historia. ¿Sabes cuántas hipótesis existen sobre el origen de la Peste de la Edad Media? 

E: El quinto postulado euclidiano revela que no hay contradicción alguna en suponer que por un punto exterior a una recta puedan pasar más de una paralela a la recta, o incluso ninguna.

 

H: ¡Muy bien! Se ve que te gusta la geometría. Aplica ese razonamiento al momento de la historia. ¿Se te ocurre algún ejemplo?

E: Me interesa ese ejemplo que mencionaste de la Peste negra de 1348.    

H: Pues te diré que hay decenas de versiones del origen de la Peste negra.

E: Y ¿cómo?

H: Cada versión difiere de la otra, algunas se apoyan entre sí y luego divergen. Así es la ciencia.  

E: Entonces ¿no tenemos aún la verdad el origen de la pandemia?

H: Yo diría que tenemos parte de la verdad. Y es suficiente por ahora. 

E: ¡¿Suficiente?! Frustrante dirás. 

H: Si no fuese suficiente tendríamos más de la verdad que lo que tenemos. Cada momento de la realidad es perfecto en sí mismo. 

E:  (Con cara de desesperado) ¿¿¿¿Qué????

H: (Con cara de buena) La realidad no es frustrante... tampoco es hilarante. La realidad –simple y llanamente– ES.

E: (hace silencio)

H: La memoria de la historia es el archivo total de todas sus versiones. No hay memoria sin un ancla en la realidad. Sin embargo (y esto que voy a decirte es importante): la memoria es susceptible de desgaste, extravío, distorsión y pérdida. Y ahora se me hace tarde. Dejémoslo para la próxima. 

(continuará)

Homework #8 (lo que queda del capítulo 4)

pág. 229, sección  4.2, ejercicios  #1, #3

pág. 233, sección 4.3, ejercicios #1, #4, #5

pág. 241, sección 4.4, ejercicios #1, #3, #4

pág. 245, sección 4.5, ejercicios #1, #4, #5

my grading criteria (and a discussion about the integrity of names)

Our test had 24 questions. The parameters of image identification are three: author, title & year. 

Each is worth a point. 24 x 3 = 72; that's my 100%. 

This is the ancient "rule of three," discussed by Al-Biruni (it seems to be discovered by the Hindus, great mathematicians in ancient times). 

If someone gets 11 wrong, that's 72 - 11 = 61 right answers. 

72 --- 100

61 --- X

so, 61 = 84.7 points,  ∓ B+  

I averaged my Bs down to 20 wrong! Less than that it's a C. 

Good deal, right?

______________

INTEGRITY OF NAMES

Now, this is a HISTORY of PHILOSOPHY class. 

History belongs in the Human Sciences, the so-called Geisteswissenchaften which means we pay attention to language and respect language conventions.

A name by definition has two parts: forname or first name, which identifies the person and surname, which indicates family, tribe, and community. 

A name is a fundamental reference. We don't identify individuals just by surname (as many of you did in the exam).

Here you apply the GOLDEN RULE (and the most ancient and important law on this earth), TREAT OTHERS AS YOU'D LIKE OTHERS TO TREAT YOU.

For the final exam, I ask you to observe this rule.  

name = forname + surname

Now comes the spelling of a name. Are we not a "diverse" society? Well, in a diverse society, we respect the integrity of a name. John Kennedy is neither Kenedy nor Quennedy nor Chennedy.

Do you like when someone, who addresses you, misspells your name? Sure, you may forgive an incidental misspelling (it happens to everybody), but not as a matter of habit. 

Not as a why-do-I-have-to-spell-this-weird-name-in-Russian kind of attitude? 

So, please ALSO observe this rule for the final exam.