Emergent properties: bird flight, tornadoes, depression, ant colonies

An emergent property is a property which a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have. In such a case, the whole system is sometimes said to have Gestalt. A failure to realize that a property is emergent, or supervenient, leads to the fallacy of division.  For example, the taste of saltiness is a property of salt, but that does not mean that it is also a property of sodium and chlorine, the two elements which make up salt. Thus, saltiness is an emergent or a supervenient property of salt. Claiming that chlorine must be salty because salt is salty would be an example of the fallacy of division.

Read this link about tornadoes, depressions and bird flight.

Is there free will (2)

Causal determinism is roughly defined as the view that all current and future events are causally necessitated by past events combined with the laws of nature.

Hard determinists, also known as incompatibilists believe that a deterministic universe is completely at odds with the idea of free will. The reason you might be drinking now at the bar can be traced back to brain synapses, or behavior, that has been caused 10 years ago.

The argument goes this way: If causal determinism is true, then we can't act freely.

If this was true, we have to examine what happens with our idea of responsibility. For you see, can you hold someone responsible for an action that could be predicted from the beginning of time?

But even the idea of a cause is slippery. There is a school shooting and the editorialists debate whether it was caused by the shooter's parents, TV violence, stress on students, Hollywood or the accessibility of guns. Why not say that all may have necessarily contributed?

Then there is the issue of physiological predispositions. Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen, researchers in the emerging field of neuroethics, argue that our current notion of moral responsibility is founded on libertarian (and dualist) intuitions. They argue that cognitive neuroscience research is undermining these intuitions by showing that the brain is responsible for our actions, not only in cases of psychosis, but even in less obvious situations (i.e., damage to the frontal lobe reduces the ability to weigh uncertain risks and make prudent decisions).
_____

On the other hand, freedom requires que ability to choose. We can even present this sequence Reason ---> Freedom ----> Responsibility. It seems that they are necessarily connected. Who can accuse a teller of robbing a bank if we find out later that the reason he did it was that his family was handicapped by assailants and threatened unless he did it? So we have to add one more premise.

If we can't act freely, we can't be held responsible for our actions. That makes sense from the legal point of view. What cuts the difference between, say, murder and manslaughter is mens rea, that is to say, intent (the idea of malice or afterthought). Most courts accept a major mental illness, such as psychosis (though will not accept the diagnosis of a personality disorder for the purposes of an insanity defense).
_____
According to sociobiology there is a relationship between our genetic makeup and our upbringing (how we're nurtured) to that of a photographic negative and developing fluid. Just as the negative can be developed well or poorly, so can our innate propensities. Recent dramatic findings by researchers at North Carolina Chapell Hill lend creedence to this hypothesis. They discovered three genes that predispose teens to serious and violent delinquency:

The team studied information from 1,100 boys in grades 7–12. Variations in the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene, the dopamine transporter 1 (DAT1) gene and the dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) gene were linked to delinquency, but “Positive influences appeared to reduce the effect of the genes, while an absence of positive influences amplified the effects,” according to Canwest News Service. For example, having regular meals with parents served to moderate the effects of the “risky” DRD2 gene, whereas not having those meals amplified the aggression.

Now, imagine Hard determinism was true. Would there be any justification for punishment? Why and why not?
_____
Then there is Compatibilism, (in the textbook appears as soft-determinism). That is to say, free will and determinism are compatible ideas. It is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. Now, keep in mind that compatibilists (or soft-determinists) define 'free will' in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism. Here free will is a sort of liberty: i.e, "freedom to act (according to one's determined motives)".

This video on the limits of free will is helpful.

(Go back to the first page)

Male ant and its vicissitudes

"Trickle down economics?" (2)

On the other hand, proponents of Keynesian economics and related theories often criticize tax rate cuts for the wealthy as being "trickle down", arguing tax cuts directly targeting those with less income would be more economically stimulative. Keynesians generally argue for broad fiscal policies that are direct across the entire economy, not toward one specific group.

The NYTimes has taken up the argument to a group of experts in a new section Room for Debate. These are the different arguments, which surprisingly, seem to point to a kind of consensus:

William Gale advises:

The Congressional Budget Office recently considered 11 options for stimulating the economy and extending the tax cuts tied for least effective. Policy makers could do far more good for the economy in the short run by allowing the same increase in the deficit as would come from extending the tax cuts (or the tax cuts that help only high income households) and using the money instead to pay for infrastructure and investment programs and aid to the states so that they can avoid laying off workers.

Laura Tyson writes:

Trickle-down arguments in favor of tax cuts focus on their effects on supply, not demand. According to trickle-down logic, letting the Bush tax cuts expire for top taxpayers will reduce how much they work and how much they invest, not how much they consume. Samuelson makes a trickle-down argument when he warns that higher taxes for top income earners will discourage small business activity. But less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two brackets, so 98 percent of small-business owners will not be affected if the Bush tax cuts for these brackets expire. Moreover, the trickle-down theory about the relationship between tax rates and economic activity, even though it has superficial appeal, is not supported by the evidence.

Linda Beale explains:

These arguments essentially amount to a claim that a tax cut for the wealthy is the best use for the $700 billion in additional revenue the cut would cost over 10 years. Yet respected studies have shown that tax cuts are not the most effective way to stimulate the economy. The affluent will still spend, even if they cut back a small amount: generally, higher taxes merely lead the affluent to save less.

James K. Galbraith asks:

But let's also ask: Is supporting the private consumption of a wealthy minority really a national goal? Is this the motor we wish to drive the economy forward? Should we go on expanding the frontiers of high living, while teachers and police face layoffs and parks and libraries close?

Matthew C. Weinzierl:

As important, these tax increases will not threaten the recovery. The taxpayers fortunate enough to qualify for them are unlikely to reduce spending substantially in response. In normal times, these households save a greater share of their incomes than Americans who earn less, so changes in their incomes translate into smaller changes in spending. Today, when the government has built up a large debt, these households rationally expect much of that debt to be repaid through increased taxes on them at some point. If they are not asked to pay higher tax rates now, they will simply save much of the excess for the day when they are.

After hearing the experts. What's your take?
(Go back to the initial page here).

Echolocation in action

Remember Nagel's Bats thought experiment? Read this definition of echolocation. Scroll down to "Auditory Cortex," with a diagram of a bat's brain. Again, as much as we know their brains we don't know their mentals states.

Dolphin massacre in Japan

Dolphins are developed human-friendly mammals. However, they don't get the best treatment from some dolphin-hungry Japanese. The Cove won Best Documentary at the  Sundance Festival this year.

The Philosophy Club

The Philosophy Club is on. The president of the club is Margo Gignac from T,R 11:15am class. Other positions are being filled right now. If you're interested in participating let me or Margo know. Act now!

Right to die

An Australian quadriplegic who won a landmark legal battle to starve himself to death by refusing food died on Monday, his family said, ending an existence he described as a "living hell".

Domestic violence around the world

How do you fight domestic violence? How to convince an abuser that what he does is wrong?

Religion and engineering

An interesting conference about the origin of religions by philosopher Dan Dennet for TED. 
Dennet sees religion as a powerful and highly adaptable social institution. His idea is to teach an unbiased, factual History of World Religions in schools all over America. His goal? Watch and learn.

Link for "Doing Philosophy"

Check out the link for our textbook, Doing Philosophy. I'd like you to start fiddling with the quizzes for Chapter 1 and 7 (with different sections). They have flashcards and all sort of interactive tools.

The test is multiple choice and a truth-and-false section. Remember to bring your own scantrons 48TMS (rectangular, with 5 questions per row) to our exam. They have it in two colors, red and teel. 

How to study for my test? You should make flash cards. Write down each concept in a card. Separating concepts is better for memorization. When you are done with all our definitions, then suffle the cards and try to memorize the definitions.

The comment box is open in case you have questions. 

Important stuff

Assignment #1 (All PHI classes)

 

Suppose you believe "X" (which happens to be important for you). (a) Do you care if you have a justification for it? (b) Do you care if "X" is true? In your answer, try to think of a real-life example.


How about (more important) topics, such as euthanasia, death penalty, marijuana legalization, prostitution, torture, stem cell research, global warming, gay marriage, etc?

Phi 2010 T, 5:40-8:10pm

Phi 2010 TR, 11:15am

Phi 2010 TR, 9:50am

Phi 2010 MWF, 11am

Phi 2010 MWF, 9am

How light enters the brain via eyes (very detailed video)

We discussed secondary qualities. The red apple. Redness is not in the apple's surface. Red happens in the brain as a result of a very complicated process. 

Here is an approximate conversion of anstrom (wavelegnth) to color:

Ultraviolet - Shorter than 3,770 K. units.
Violet - From 3,770 to 4,300 K. units.
Blue - From 4,300 to 4,550 K. units.
Blue Green - From 4,550 to 4,850 K. units.
Green - From 4,850 to 5,400 K units.
Yellow - From 5,400 to 5,900 K. units.
Orange - From 5,900 to 6,300 K. units.
Red - From 6,300 to 7,550 K. units.
Infrared - More than 7,700 K. units.

What's a true belief?

A belief is (a mental state), something one takes to be the case. If someone believes "X" he/she generally believes that "X" is true. But it turns that my believing "X" doesn't make "X" true. The link between belief and truth is knowledge: B-------------K----------- Truth

Beliefs are sometimes divided into core beliefs (those which you may be actively thinking about) and dispositional beliefs (those which you may ascribe to but have never previously thought about). For example, if asked "do you believe tigers eat grass?" a person might answer that they do not, despite the fact they may never have thought about this situation before.

The main problem in epistemology is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief. (the justification is necessary. It shows that our belief is more than a lucky guess. A sort of "warrant."

The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.


A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere believer in the flat earth theory does not know that the Earth is flat.  Now, Let's define truth.

Correspondence Theory of Truth: Truth is a fact. “Snow is white.” Facts are obvious. But what happens when you don't have the facts?

Pragmatic Theory of Truth: Truth is what best does the job at hand.

According to pragmatism, truth is a process of inquiry. A crime investigation requires a good inference process, we get to the truth by a process of trial & error. The best our explanations and inferences become, the closer we get to the truth. We get more truth as we go along. as I said in class, 20% of truth is better than nothing. Coherence theory of truth: Truth is what best coheres with the rest of our knowledge.

Global warming

Via Wilson Tique, a very interesting documentary about global warming.

Where is the juice?

 

We had an interesting discussion about wine on Friday. Some of you seem to indicate that one has all the right in the world not to like Clos de los Siete (above), a wine you can buy for about $15. I agree.

Now, while our preference for wine is somewhat subjective, there must be something in the Clos de los Siete, 2007, that is beyond a -mere- subjective opinion on my part. Namely, the quality of the juice itself. This is –ultimately- what decides the difference between a good and a mediocre wine.

What makes "good wine" good? A good combination of terroir, viticulture and vinification.

1- Terroir addresses the the influence of the place where the grapes are grown. Variations in factors, such as micro-climate (topography), soil properties (drainage and water availability, but possibly also chemical differences). The right viticulture: Yield is very important, this is how many grapes are grown per hectare of land; it is quoted in hectoliters per hectare e.g. 50 hl/ha. For example, fewer grape bunches per vine the more intense their flavor will be. At the very best vineyards yields can be as low as 30hl/ha, e.g. top quality Burgundy, as opposed to around 100hl/ha for non-quality wines, e.g. Liebfraumilch. The right vinification: Grapes must be made into wine as soon after they have been picked as possible, because contact with air causes oxidization, which spoils their flavor. Understanding the effects of air, as well as temperature control during fermentation have been breakthroughs in modern wine-making techniques. It can work in art as well. 

So whereas one is entitled to say "Triff, I hate Clos de los Siete", saying  "Clos de los Siete is a bad wine" is simply not true. 

Thrown, dropped, mutilated, and ground-up alive

Is the food we eat that cheap?

Check out this interesting article in TIME MAGAZINE about the kind of food we eat. It boils down to a thought experiment: Is it worth spending so many resources to raise animals for food, when doing so is more detrimental in the long run?

Somewhere in Iowa, a pig is being raised in a confined pen, packed in so tightly with other swine that their curly tails have been chopped off so they won't bite one another. To prevent him from getting sick in such close quarters, he is dosed with antibiotics. The waste produced by the pig and his thousands of pen mates on the factory farm where they live goes into manure lagoons that blanket neighboring communities with air pollution and a stomach-churning stench. He's fed on American corn that was grown with the help of government subsidies and millions of tons of chemical fertilizer. When the pig is slaughtered, at about 5 months of age, he'll become sausage or bacon that will sell cheap, feeding an American addiction to meat that has contributed to an obesity epidemic currently afflicting more than two-thirds of the population. And when the rains come, the excess fertilizer that coaxed so much corn from the ground will be washed into the Mississippi River and down into the Gulf of Mexico, where it will help kill fish for miles and miles around. That's the state of your bacon — circa 2009.

Black holes

Possible destruction of the universe?

From Techfreep: By accelerating protons toward each other at 99.999999% the speed of light the LHC can recreate conditions similar to those that resulted from the Big Bang, ultimately alighting a great deal about the particles and forces that comprise our Universe. A press release from CERN better illuminates their intent for the project. Another interesting article in Radiant Reality.

Dark Rosted Blend has very good photographs. It quotes some additional material worth speculating.

__________

CERN's main function is to provide the particle accelerators and other infrastructure needed for high-energy physics research.

Are you interested in possibilities?

I wanted to tell you that logical possibility is a subset of a wider kind known as subjunctive possibilities. Basically, subjunctive possibilities express wishes, commands, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or statements that are contrary to fact at present.

So, we have:

*Logical possibility is usually considered the broadest sort of possibility; a proposition is said to be logically possible if there is no logical contradiction involved in its being true. "Dick Cheney is a bachelor" is logically possible, though in fact false.

* Metaphysical possibility is either equivalent to logical possibility or narrower than it. For instance, "Water is H2O" is metaphysically necessary but not logically necessary.

* Nomological possibility is a possibility under the actual laws of nature. Most philosophers since David Hume have held that the laws of nature are metaphysically contingent -i.e., that there could have been different natural laws than the ones that actually obtain. If so, then it would not be logically or metaphysically impossible, for example, for you to travel to Alpha Centauri in one day; it would just have to be the case that you could travel faster than the speed of light. But of course there is an important sense in which this is not possible; given that the laws of nature are what they are, there is no way that you could do it.

* Temporal possibility is a possibility given the actual history of the world. Barack Obama could have chosen a degree in Accounting rather than Law, but there is an important sense in which he cannot do it now. So, the "could have" expresses the fact that there is no logical, metaphysical impossibility involved in Obama's having a degree in Accounting instead of Law; the "cannot now" expresses the fact that that possibility is no longer open, given that the past is as it actually is.

Laws of nature and origins of the universe

As per our discussion last week about laws of nature, read here. I think the most important laws are conservation laws, mass energy equivalence, and chemical laws, such as chemical equilibrium, First Law and Second Law of thermodynamics, and what is known as Classical Electromagnetism.

As per how these laws can change (a point one of you suggested in class), read this Wikipedia article:

Experiments and observations suggest that the Universe has been governed by the same physical laws and constants throughout its extent and history. The dominant force at cosmological distances is gravity and general relativity is currently the most accurate theory of gravitation.

I think for the sake of our future discussions it would be a good idea to check out the origins of the universe. Here is a PBS presentation entitled NOVA. Click "launch interactive."

What's the age of the universe? Click here for a brief discussion of the time-line of cosmology.

Important note for Summer A&B and Summer B classes

Below you find reviews for Final Exam for two different classes: Summer B and Summer A&B.
Summer A&B have chapters 5 & 6. Summer B have chapters 4 & 5. If you have any questions, I'll leave the comment-box open.

Summer B Topics for Final Exam (2009)

Review for Chapter 4

1. Numerical identity: two people are identical if they are one and the same. The idea of "individuality" = indivisibility. Qualitative Identity: Two people are identical if they share same qualities.
Animalism: Sort of "I'm my body." We are embodied, bodies being crucial for our physical interactions. C/E Locke's Tale of the Prince and the Cobbler, Siamese Twins. Also with the phenomenon of "transgender" (the transgender rejects his/her body for a different one, i.e. "I was born in the wrong body" is the claim).
2. Memory Theory. "I'm my memories." a- Direct memory, indirect memory. C/E Circularity in Locke's theory.
3. Psychological Continuity Theory: Real memory, apparent memory, quasi-memory. Psychological connectedness. C/E: Parfit's Teletransportation Machine: If Parfit dies, Parfit (the copy) is psych. continuous with the original and has a similar body (remember that it is not really the same body, i.e., Parfit is only numerically identical to himself). One implication at the end of 4.2 is this: Is identity a necessary condition for survival? The answer is no.
5. Brain Theory: "I'm my psyche caused and realized in my brain." C/A: Split Brains, Parfit’s Division (in this case Parfit's surviving brothers are psych with Parfit and have similar bodies being that they are twins). The experiment shows that one can be psyhc identical to someone else in the same brain (each brother share Parfit's half-brain hemisphere).
6. Identity and what matters in survival and responsibility.
7. Self as "process." Character. What's character? The consistency of behavior through time. An interesting summary on Personal Identity here.

Chapter 5
1. Subjective Absolutism: The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it; Counterarguments: (a) By "Logical contradiction" we mean that two opposing arguments cannot be right at the same time, and (b)impossibility of moral disagreements (one can only agree with the absolutist and the reason is that he believes he's the ONLY ONE THAT'S RIGHT). 2. Subjective Relativism: What makes an action right is that it is approved by that person. Counterarguments (same as above). You must be able to tell the difference between the (the absolutist thinks she's the only one that's right, whereas the subjective relativist believes that many people can disagree and still be right at the same time) absolutist and the subjective relativist.
3. Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture. Counterarguments: (a) Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and (b) differences between deep values (moral values, i.e., human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare) and superficial values (domestic habits, etiquette, fashion, etc) other cultural values to the effect that most cultures seem to share the same deep moral values.
4. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: Moral standards + factual beliefs = Moral judgments (this is not a formula, just an approximation). What is a factual belief? A belief held by factual evidence (i.e., child abuse is wrong because of the facts we know about psychology, human rights, child development, etc,).
5. Are there universal moral principles? YES! 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) and 2- Principle of justice (Treat equals equally).

Section 5.2.
Difference between consequentialist theories and formalist theories. Consequentialism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. Formalism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of the action's form (i.e., "killing is wrong": the formalist believes that moral actions are objective).
2. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's best interest in the long run = PRUDENCE. Counterarguments: (a) Egoist's motivations (if known, the egoist's intentions seem to betray reversibility principle). (b) Egoism is not a socially or politically cogent theory (i.e., you would not vote for an egoist in office).
3. Act Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered (which means, "bringing happiness for the greatest majority of people"). Counterarguments: (a) Mc Closkey’s informant (b) Brandt’s Heir, (c) Ross' unhappy promise, (d) Goodwin's Fire Rescue. In each one of these cases one has violated principles of justice, duty and equality.
4. Rule Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it falls under a rule that if generally followed would maximize happiness everyone considered. RU is a better theory than AU. Why? Because if applied, it can solve the problems posed by the previous counterarguments.Section
5.3.1. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone can act on it (which yields universalizability), and you'd have everyone acting on it (which yields reversibility: Golden Rule)
2. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS AND NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END. Problems with the second formulation: Problem of exceptions: Some times we have to treat people as means to ends: Broad's Typhoid Man.
Pluralistic Formalism: What makes an action right is that it falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation.
3. Ross’ Prima Facie Duties. Actual duties: One that must be performed in a particular situation. Prima Facie Duty: A duty that must be performed unless it conflict with a more important duty. You must know hierarchy and each one of these duties as I explained in class: 1- Justice, 2- fidelity and 3- reparation being the first three, because they explain out the remaining ones: beneficence, non-maleficence, gratitude, self-improvement.
4. Why is Pluralistic Formalism better than Kantian theory? Because it allows for exceptions.