click here for my intro to moral norms,
Thursday, November 13, 2025
Friday, November 7, 2025
Thursday, November 6, 2025
Monday, November 3, 2025
Topics for your philosophy paper
NEVER CITE WIKIPEDIA IN YOUR PAPER; LOOK AT THE WIKIPEDIA CITATIONS AND CITE THEM.
Abortion vs. Pro-Life
The abortion debate—often framed as pro-choice versus pro-life—is a central issue in philosophy because it forces us to grapple with foundational questions about moral status, bodily autonomy, and the definition of a person. At its core, the debate hinges on a conflict between two deeply held ethical principles: the sanctity of human life and the right to self-determination.
Factory farms and/or Animal welfare
(Generally, it is little appreciated that this topic has ecological and human/animal dimensions: the link between animal-processed foods, environmental degradation, and vegetarianism, all tied to the still obscure field of animal ethics).
Gun control vs. Second Amendment
(A problem intersecting Second Amendment rights, civil rights, policy, government interference, mental health, and terrorism).
Social media & culture
(Privacy issues, information overload, cyberbullying, fake news, social isolation, net addiction, etc).
Climate change
(Global warming is at the forefront of today's scientific and sociopolitical discourse; many issues here are worth discussing: what is nature? Generational responsibility, presentism, economic growth, etc.
Capital Punishment vs. Abolitionism
Online free expression must yield when it causes social harm. Counter: Restricting speech online undermines democratic discourse. Urgent amid misinformation, hate speech, and debates over platform regulation.
AI (doomers vs. skeptics vs. pragmatists)
The ongoing debate surrounding the future of artificial intelligence is fundamentally shaped by three core perspectives: doomers, skeptics, and pragmatists, each playing a vital role in determining how humanity builds and regulates technology.
Paper proposal sample (this Thursday)
1- Heading (in Times New Roman, 12-point).
On the left side, write your name (last name first), "Philosophy Paper Proposal."
2- Write the title in bold letters, middle-aligned.
3- The first paragraph has your thesis, followed by a brief explanation supporting it. The second paragraph presents the counterthesis, followed by a brief explanation supporting it. So-and-so depends on your paper topic (e.g., Second Amendment advocates, Climate Change skeptics, etc.).
______________________________________________
Rodriguez, Juan
Philosophy Paper Proposal
Even in factory farms, animals should be protected against abuse
In this paper, I argue that animals being raised in factory farms in America deserve better treatment. My argument shows the public health risks associated with unregulated factory farming, while stressing that animal cruelty is ethically wrong.
Factory Farms advocates disagree, arguing that despite animals' suffering during slaughter, current regulations are necessary to provide much-needed food products at competitive market prices.
2- Write the title in bold letters, middle-aligned.
3- The first paragraph has your thesis, followed by a brief explanation supporting it. The second paragraph presents the counterthesis, followed by a brief explanation supporting it. So-and-so depends on your paper topic (e.g., Second Amendment advocates, Climate Change skeptics, etc.).
4- Try to mimic the model below.
______________________________________________
Rodriguez, Juan
Philosophy Paper Proposal
Phi 2010 Honors
Even in factory farms, animals should be protected against abuse
In this paper, I argue that animals being raised in factory farms in America deserve better treatment. My argument shows the public health risks associated with unregulated factory farming, while stressing that animal cruelty is ethically wrong.
Factory Farms advocates disagree, arguing that despite animals' suffering during slaughter, current regulations are necessary to provide much-needed food products at competitive market prices.
Sunday, November 2, 2025
Counters to Libet's Neurophysiological Expèriment
These two arguments are a pretty good counter to Libet's experiment.
1. The Empirical Blow: The Readiness Potential is Just Background Noise.
For decades, Libet's defenders argued that the readiness potential was the brain's unconscious mind making a definitive "command decision" to move before the conscious mind knew it.
The Refutation: Led by neuroscientist Aaron Schurger, modern studies proved that the readiness potential is actually just neural noise—spontaneous, rhythmic fluctuations of electrical activity that occur constantly in the motor cortex.
The Analogies: Imagine a buoy bobbing up and down on ocean waves. Libet only looked at the data when a wave was so high that it crashed over a wall (the threshold for moving a finger). It's like saying the ocean "decided" to crash half a second early. In reality, it was just background fluctuations that finally crossed a line.
The Verdict: Brain activation preceding conscious decisions reflects the ongoing decision-making process, not a pre-determined decision itself. There is no hidden puppet-master making the choice early.
2. The Conceptual Blow: The "Homunculus" Category Error
Even if the brain shows early activity, attributing the choice to "the brain" instead of "the person" is a logical failure known as a category mistake.
The Refutation: Libet's interpretation forces a false separation between "You" (a disembodied conscious observer) and "Your Brain" (a biological machine doing things to you).
The Verdict: Free-will advocates rightly point out that your brain's pre-conscious processing is still you. A conscious decision requires background mental machinery to prepare options, weigh attention, and gather data. Discovering that your brain hums with activity before you finalize a choice doesn't mean you didn't choose; it means we are seeing the biological gears of your own mind turning.
| Argument Type | Core Claim | Why It's Strong | Why It's Secondary to "Neural Noise" |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neural Noise (Schurger) | The readiness potential is just background brain fluctuations, not a decision. | Completely dismantles the scientific basis of Libet’s data. | The Best Argument. It uses empirical neuroscience to defeat an empirical neuroscience claim. |
| Category Error | The brain's early processing is part of your identity, not an outside force. | Exposes a fundamental flaw in how materialists define the "self". | Tied for best, as it refutes the metaphysical leaps made from simple EEG charts. |
| The Conscious Veto ("Free Won't") | The conscious mind can step in and cancel an action before it happens. | Endorsed by Libet himself; preserves a final line of conscious control. | It plays defense. It concedes that the brain starts decisions without you, leaving free will as just an emergency brake. |
| Metaconsciousness Timing | The time lag is just the delay it takes to reflect on your urge, not the birth of the urge. | Logically bulletproof regarding the limits of human attention and clock-watching tasks. | Relies on psychology/introspection, which hard determinists often dismiss as subjective. |
| Oversimplified Tasks | Tapping a finger is an autopilot reflex, not a moral or complex choice. | Proves Libet didn't actually test meaningful, deliberative human agency. | Shows the experiment is irrelevant to real life, but doesn't technically disprove its accuracy regarding basic motor acts. |