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.

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 OUR MENTAL STATES. 

NOW COMES MY ANALYSIS OF THE MIND AS A SYSTEMIC PROPERTY OF THE BRAIN. 

Emergent property → is a property which is caused by things that lack that property & interact in certain ways. 

IN SYSTEMS, 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 and to LOWER levels of that system. 

For example, mental events cause 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:

 

  

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 (& other forms of 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.

  

Poverty leads families to withdraw children from school. Lack of education reduces future job opportunities.This creates a causal loop where each reinforces the other.

 5. Indirect causation: A causes C, which causes B  

El profesor anima a un alumno a leer novelas. Leer novelas mejora el vocabulario del alumno.

Un vocabulario más rico mejora el rendimiento del alumno en los exámenes escritos. Por lo tanto, el estímulo del profesor provoca indirectamente mejores resultados en los exámenes a través de pasos intermedios.

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 closely related measures are found, each may be a cluster of correlated values, each influencing the others 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) than 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. 

"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. 

"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. 

"all mammals are vertebrates," 

"water boils 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. 

 

"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 is related. 

"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 & necessary and sufficient conditions)

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 deductive arguments 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 inductive arguments 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. 

Identify whether there are necessary and sufficient conditions for the following:

1. Being a square is sufficient for being a rectangle.

2. Having a driver’s license is necessary for legally driving a car on a public road.

3. Being divisible by 4 is sufficient for being an even number. 

4. Oxygen is necessary for ordinary combustion.

5. Being a mammal is sufficient for being warm-blooded.

6. A figure is a triangle if and only if it is a three-sided polygon.

7. Being a fluent English speaker is sufficient for being a good philosopher.

8. Having a fever is necessary for having an infection.

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.  

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).

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.

Chapter 5 (From hard determinism to Libertarianism)

1. Causal Determinism (every event has a cause that makes it happen + laws of nature). CD is a theory about the universe. 

Then there is Hard determinism the doctrine that if Causal Determinism is true, then there are no free actions. 

CD: C-->E + Laws of Nature.

HD: If CD is true, then there are no free actions. 

Hard determinism assumes that if the CD is true, then there are no free actions because, as our bodies are made up of matter, we must be subject to the same laws of causation. 

Furthermore, If HD is true, then there is no human responsibility. 

We cannot be responsible for our actions (since we are responsible if and only if we can make choices). 

What's good here? Determinism seems a reasonable 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 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. Compatibilists defend the nature/nurture argument. Free will is, then, 

Traditional Compatibilism (Free actions must 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. 

See it like a two-tooth fork: 

You have barely enough time to get to Triff's class. So here's the fork:

1. You want to be on time for Triff's class. 

2. You also want to have coffee @ McDonalds before class. 

"Could have done otherwise" means "if you had chosen otherwise, then you would have done otherwise." 

Suppose you have coffee and end up being late for class. Is your being late for class a free action? YES. IT IS. For you could've forfeited doing 2. but did not. 

Locke's trapped conversationalist (in favor of compatibilism)

A person is locked in a room with someone they want to talk to (he's locked in the room, but doesn't know it). Is he not there of his own will? HE IS. Yet, is he free?

The experiment is used to argue that an action can be considered voluntary even if the person cannot physically leave. Still, it prompts a debate on whether this action is truly free if it's externally constrained. Compatibilists believe that what you want to do is entirely determined by what's encoded in your genes (your nature) and the sort of experiences that you've had (how you were nurtured). 

Despite all that, compatibilists STILL claim that you can act freely as long as your actions are caused by your mental states. 

Counterexample to compatibilism: "Taylor's Ingenious Physiologist". 

Taylor envisions a situation where a weird physiologist plants desires into his patient via DBS Deep Brain Stimulation, (without the patient's knowledge). For example the volition to raise my hand. And the hand moves! If so, both conditions of compatibility are met: 1. his actions are caused by his will, and 2. he's not externally constrained.   

In class, we have discussed how TV can "plant" desires. I can watch a movie on TV. In the scene someone drinks whiskey in a relaxed setting with soft lighting and background music. All of a sudden, I go to my bar and poured myself some whiskey, and keep watching the movie. What happened? The TV planted my desire (to drink whiskey) and I caused a volition (stood up and walked to the bar and poured myself a drink). Is my action free? 

Well, I didn't have the desire to drink before the scene. Clearly the movie planted a desire and I, automatically, acted on it. 

So, in a way, TV can be a kind of ingenious physiologist.

Is there an advantage to Traditional Compatibilism? 

Well, if you're in favor of the idea of human responsibility Traditional Compatibilism seems a good theory. It acknowledges some determinism (external constraints) 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. 

PUNISHMENT

Unlike incompatibilists, who believe that accepting determinism requires rejecting our ordinary practices, eye for an eye and retribution, compatibilists believe that we can continue to praise and blame as long as we are clear about why we do it.  

Howerver for compatibilists, the only purpose of punishment is REHABILITATION AND DETERRENCE. Punishment is concerned with causes and motives of conduct. 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.

So, PUNISHMENT IS AN EDUCATIVE MEASURE. IT MEANS THE FORMATION OF MOTIVES TO PREVENT THE WRONGDOER FROM REPEATING THE ACT (REFORMATION) AND PREVENT OTHERS FROM COMMITTING THE ACT (PREVENTION). 

FOR COMPATIBILISTS RETRIBUTION IS NOT A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR PUNISHMENT.  

3. HIERARCHICAL COMPATIBILISM: There are First and Second Order Desires and Second Order Volitions. 

Remember: A first-order desire (FOD) is directed (outside) to an object or state of affairs, a second-order (SOD) desire is a desire about a desire. A second-order volition (SOV)  is a second-order desire on which one decisively acts. 

Harry Frankfurt's three different addicts: 

1. Wanton addict: FOD, not SOD, not SOV, not free. 
2. Happy Addict: FOD, SOD, SOV, free.
3. 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. 

Analysis: 

1. The wanton addict has no second-order volitions (SOD). Just like an animal that wants something and gets it, the wanton addict never questions or reflects on his FOD. He just satisfies them. So, the wanton addict doesn't have any SOV. 

2. The happy addict acts freely because he acts on his second-order volition to take the drug. This means that a drug addict can act freely. 

3. The Unwilling addict FOD, SOD, and SOV, but he's incapable of acting on it. Though he desires not to act on his desire to take the drug, he can't help himself. He's a slave to his drug habit.

Why is hierarchical compatibility better than traditional compatibilism?

Traditional Compatibilism takes that drug addicts who suffer from compulsive disorders or are brainwashed into their addictions are free when their actions are not coerced by external constraints. 

Hierarchical compatibilism explains that drug addicts can be free, and it explains why. They have not either formulated second-order desires (like the wanton addict) or failed to act on them (the happy addict). 

Hierarchical compatibilism explains the importance of free will. People who act on their second-order volitions do what they want to do; they are their own persons. 

Hierarchical compatibilism has more explanatory power than traditional compatibilism.  

Hierarchical compatibilism also explains why animals don't have free will. Animals, especially mammals, are self-conscious, but they don't seem able to formulate second-order desires. Cows can't form a desire not to overeat. In other words, non-human animals seem to be wanton. 

Now comes the riddle: Can an SOV be caused by forces outside our control? 

Counterexample to Hierarchical Compatibilism: 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 the hypnotist has induced his decisiveness. So, we have satisfied Hierarchical Compatibilism for free action, and yet, Robert is not free because his second-order volition is not his.  

4. LIBERTARIANISM

We have two types of causation: event causation and agent causation. When an event causes an event, there's a physical causation. For example, Gravitation. Agent causation is different. Here, we have an agent causing an event. For 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: It shows 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 (Existentialism) holds that the self is essentially free. Sartre's analysis is ontological. Let's begin with this point about essence & existence: 

Pincha aquí para mi lectura sobre Sartre en español.

Existence precedes essence. It means that I am what I do with my freedom (existence) and what I am (my essence) depends on it. It also means that 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 devise a justification for our actions, which Sartre calls bad faith. Imagine an abused wife in a relationship with an alcoholic. She blames her husband for her misery. And yet, as unhappy as she is, she maintains the relationship. Time and again, she goes through the experience and tells people about how horrible her life is. But she goes back to his husband. For Sartre, this woman is in bad faith. She blames others for her inability to leave her toxic relationship.

However, since not choosing is choosing, she remains responsible for her actions in the end.  

The only possible constraint on our freedom is our facticity . Facticity is my height, genes, parents, etc. Things I don't and can't choose.

👇

Aquí la conclusión del capítulo. 

¿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.