attention: student assistants offering two reviews for exam #2 (summer AB)!!

1- Alexander, Omar, Candida and Ronald have a review scheduled for Monday June 27, from 12-1pm, Building 2, 3rd floor by the Idea Center.

2- Ronald Pauleus will hold a second review on Tuesday from 8-9:30am, in the same place (by the Idea Center Building 2, 3rd floor). 

Kids: Try to make these reviews! It can make a big difference.

Thank you to my student assistants!

topics for exam #2 summer AB

find our topics for exam #2 for summer AB here.

student assistants for phi 2010 summer AB class

Candida Hernandez
Omar Gonzales
Ronald Pauleus
Alexander Loureiro

What does it take to be a SA? A person who is willing to help other students.

How does one spot a SA? She participates, does her homework on time, barely misses a class, studies for the test and gets at least a B+.

She shows this behavior consistently throughout the semester. SAs help anyone in need. The reward? x-tra points!

(I'd argue that the ideal SA does what he/she does not for the x-tra points, but for the sake of helping her student-community, in any event, x-tra points don't hurt).

REVIEW FOR MIDTERM EXAM (Athenais Aquaviva)

*Most of the test will consist of chapters 2 and 3*

CHAPTER 2 (Mind/Body)

Cartesian Dualism: Mental States = immaterial substance that interacts with the body (the mind = l’âme, the body = le corps) Arguments: Conceivability and Divisibility. 

Conceivability: You can conceive the mind without the body but you cannot conceive yourself without the mind. Therefore, the mind and body are separate, and you are the mind. 

Divisibility: The mind is not divisible, but the body is.

Logical Behaviorism: Mental States = Behavior Dispositions (Which behavior your mind choose to adopt depends on your brain state).

Counters: Putnam’s Perfect pretender and Putnam’s Super-Spartans. - Perfect Pretender: A person is unable to feel pain, but behaves as if they feel pain. Mental state (does not feel pain) ≠ Behavioral state (shows pain) - Super Spartans: A person feels pain, but behaves as if they do not feel pain.

Mental state (does feel pain) ≠ Behavioral state (doesn’t show pain)

Identity Theory: Mental States = Brain States (Just physiological causes).

Counters: Nagel’s Bats, Lewis’ Pained Martian and Putnam’s Conscious Computer. 

Nagel’s Bats: We cannot have knowledge of the mental state of the bat because we do not perceive life as they do. Mental States are private and felt. Brain states are public and observable. Mental state ≠ Brain state.
Lewis' Pained Martian: Martian has no brain but it still can experience pain. Mental state (pain) ≠ Brain state (there’s no brain) - Conscious Computer: Computer has no brain, but can still be programmed to think and feel as we do. Mental state (think and feel like humans) ≠ Brain state (there’s no brain).

Functionalism: Mental States = Functional States (How the brain functions depends on distinctive mental states).

Counters: Lewis’s Pained Madman, Putnam’s Inverted Spectrum and Block’s Chinese Nation.
Lewis' Pained Madman: Man experiences pain, but functions differently from the common man. He snaps his fingers and does math Mental state (input: pain) ≠ Functional state (output: snaps fingers and math)
Putnam's Inverted Spectrum: To the average person, red appears as red. But to someone with an inverted spectrum, red appears as blue. However both people say the object is red despite seeing red differently. Mental state (input: diff. perceptions of red) ≠ Functional state (output: say color is red).

Chinese Nation: Millions of Chinese people function as a brain, however this does not form a unified mind. Mental state (no mind) ≠ Functional state (million of people interact as a brain).

Turing Test for Intelligence: If a computer could lie, it will be considered intelligent.

Counters: Seattle’s Chinese Room - A person can respond in Chinese by following certain rules without knowing the meaning of the response. The computer doesn’t have knowledge about what it does, it is just giving certain output by following fixed rules, and using given data(s). It can also learn to play chess without understanding it.

Theories about the Mind:

Property Dualism: The Mind emerges from the Brain (or, the Brain causes the Mind). And the Mind makes the Brain function properly (downward cause). 

Biological Naturalism: There are two sort of brain (or the brain has two functions) => There is the 1st order brain (sensitive, to feel), and the 2nd order brain (reflective, to think).

CHAPTER 3 

Hard Determinism: Do not believe in any form of free will. Extremists of the spectrum (Because we are atoms, and everything is atoms, and because we have no control over atoms, we have no control on ourselves, so there is no free will). We simply follow the laws of nature.

Soft Determinism: We can make choices given us free will, but those choices are predetermined. (We have option “A” and “B”).

Traditional Compatibilism: We have free will (Choices) but if we were given another choice or it was made available such as “C”, we would have taken it.

Libertarianism: We have free will over some of our actions (only the actions under our control) . But we must decide what we are doing, and our desire must be our own. Extremists of the spectrum.

Counters: Taylor’s Ingenious Physiologist, and Taylor’s Drug Addiction.

CHAPTER 1 

(Philosophical Problems and Theories) Philosophy Branches Metaphysics= What is reality? Epistemology= What is knowledge? Axiology= What is value? Logic= What is a logical argument? Sufficient conditions = If A condition happens, then B must happens. Necessary conditions = If A condition happens, then B might happens, but It’s not completely sure.
 
Examples: Having gas in a car is a necessary condition to start a car but it is not sufficient to make it start. The car also needs wheels and etc. Years of smoking is neither necessary nor sufficient to getting lung cancer.t is not necessary because not everyone that smokes gets lung cancer. It is not sufficient Oxygen is necessary for human life but it is not sufficient because we also need food to live.

Deductive Arguments: If P (premise) is true, then C (conclusion) is true. => Sound deductive argument. If P is false, then C is true. => Unsound deductive argument. Truth preserving arguments, what it is says in there has to be true. - Can be sound or unsound.

Inductive Arguments : If P is true, then C is true. => Strong inductive argument, and cogent. If P is false, then C is false. => Strong inductive argument, but uncogent. If P is true, then C is false. => Weak inductive argument. Not truth preserving arguments, what it is says in there doesn’t have to be 100% true. - Can be strong or weak - Can be cogent (If the premises are true) I.B.E = Influence to the Best Explanation.

Criteria of Adequacy: ● Consistency ● Scope ● Fruitfulness ● Simplicity ● Conservatism

Fallacies: ● Petitio principii: The snake eating itself (ouroboros), it is the metaphor of the Fallacy. The snake thinks that everything is fine to eat the tail of another snake, but he doesn’t figure out that he is eating himself. (Begging the question) Fallacies : ● Appeal to authority ● Appeal to tradition ● Appeal to fear ● Appeal to masses ● Hasty generalization ● False dilemma ● Begging the question ● Ad hominem

Conceivable ≠ Possible Logically Impossible Something is logically impossible if it violates the law of logic (nothing can have a property and lack it at the same time) .

Causally Impossible Something is causally impossible if it violates the law of nature (Physics) .

CHAPTER 7 

(Knowledge - Epistemology) Beliefs do not equal Knowledge.
The difference between a belief (something I accept) and knowledge is that not everything I believe is true. In other words, beliefs is not sufficient condition for knowledge.
Beliefs ≠ Knowledge Believe: Mental state of acceptance.
Knowledge: aptness=accuracy + adroitness
Accuracy: Goal seeking
Adroitness: exhibiting skill

Theories of Truth:

Correspondence: Truth is a fact (example: "Snow is white.")
Pragmatic Theory: Truth is what best does the job at hand. (example: "Dom Perignon is a good champagne.")
Coherence Theory of Truth: Truth is what best coheres with the rest of my knowledge.

Theories of Knowledge:

Standard Account of Knowledge: K=JTB (Knowledge = Justified True Belief) Counter: Gettier’s Guy in Barcelona.

Defeasibility Theory: K=UJTB (Knowledge = Undefeated Justified True Belief) Counter: Lehrer’s Compulsive Liar Mrs Grabit. (Lehrer has both animal and reflective knowledge but he doubted himself, so he destroyed his own knowledge.)

Causal Theory: K=SCTB (Knowledge = Suitably Caused True Belief) Counter: Goldmann’s Fake Barns. (Goldmann has animal knowledge but lacks reflective)

Reliability Theory: K=RPTB (Knowledge = Reliable Produced True Belief) Counter: Lehrer’s Human Thermometer.

Sosa's Virtue Perspectivism: K = apt belief (apt = accuracy and adroitness) This theory includes both Animal Knowledge and Reflective Knowledge.
AK= Knowledge acquired by Senses, 1st order Knowledge.
RK= Reflection over our Animal Knowledge, 2nd order Knowledge.


Philosophers/ Philosophical Movements Empiricists: Sense experience is the source of knowledge - Plato: Plato’s cave: Reality is in the forms. For example our reality is in the senses (physical world).

A posteriori knowledge: Knowledge based on sense experience

Rationalists: Reason is the source of knowledge.
Descartes : Descartes refutes (undermines) Plato by saying that our perception could trick us. 

A priori knowledge: Knowledge acquired prior/ or independently of sense experience.

Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge = Kantian synthesis: truth discovered by understanding are synthetic. They are not logical truths and a priori because they apply to all possible experiences. Example: Mathematics are synthetic a priori, because mathematics are the governing principles of the universe. We must filter anything received from the world through mathematics.

If you are interested in Eastern Philosophy I will be teaching Phi 2070 (Intro to Eastern Philosophy) in the fall 2016

Here is the syllabus for the class.

We'll read from the most important original sources in class, do some yoga, even meditate!

Hope to see you!

Review for final exam: this wednesday, april 27, at 3pm @ Library Building 1

This review is conducted by Nicole Zambrano and Katerina Golubev. They will also revise students final drafts!

another review for chapter 5! (via stephany cerezo from interamerican campus)

it covers sections 5.1-5.3.

final exams (regular classes)

t,r 9:50-11:05am class: tuesday, april 26

t,r 11:15-12:30am class: thursday, april 28 

t, 5:40-8:10pm class: tuesday, april 26

final exams (honors classes)

m,w,f 10am class: wednesday april 27

m,w,f 11am class: friday, april 29 

a note from Kamila Marchante regarding the Human Rights Alliance!

Join Human Rights Alliance for a night of music, dance, spoken word and art as we allow creative expression to convey human rights violations occurring in our community and around the world.

for information, click here!

honors review @ interamerican tomorrow wednesday

Mario and Ivette will have a review session tomorrow from 2:30-4pm. Room 1218.

Thanks!

honors classes! yonah elorza has a review tomorrow wednesday 3-4:30pm

yonah elorza, is hosting a study session tomorrow wednesday from 3 to 4:30pm in the Idea Center, building 2, 3rd floor. 
(all invited)

thanks!

send those drafts to me!! (HONORS CLASSES)

draft's length: 1,200 words minimum. 
double-spaced, 
Times New Roman p. 12
follow MLA protocols (in-text citations and bibliography)
send it in Word file, please, no Google docs, my computer doesn't read that.
IN THE SUBJECT OF YOUR EMAIL PLEASE STATE DAY (MWF) AND TIME OF CLASS (10am) SEND TO 
atriff@mdc.edu

The paper must show a heading like this:

__________________________________________
Philosophy Paper First Draft
Phi 2010 T 5:40pm
Doe, John

Title (bold, no italics)

(as per our conversation this morning at Phi 2010 Honors 11am class)

in two volumes,  by Rowe and McCleary (I'm almost done the first).

on homomorphisms,

proof's heading?

the abel prize (i.e., nobel for mathematics) goes to....

Professor Andrew Wiles from Oxford. Conratulations!

He solved one of math's toughest problems, so called, Fermat's last theorem.

SUMMER AB first draft submissions: bring your draft to class for an in-class-revision!

david chalmers explain consciousness (TED talk)

check this out, professor chalmers has some interesting points. 

first draft submissions HONORS CLASSES (send via email)

it's time for your first draft submissions. 

PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO AVOID MISTAKES

the draft contains:

1- BODY, which is an improved, revised version of the discussion you already submitted with  your thesis  (T)and the counter (C), and the back-and-forth. 

2- CONCLUSION: Close the paper with a conclusion-paragraph: "I hope I have shown that..." or "In conclusion... "

3- BIBLIOGRAPHY: A one (separate) page (following MLA conventions).

draft's length: 1,200 words minimum. 
double-spaced, 
Times New Roman p. 12
follow MLA protocols (in text citations and bibliography)
send it in Word file, please, no Google docs, my computer doesn't read that.
IN THE SUBJECT OF YOUR EMAIL PLEASE STATE DAY AND TIME OF CLASS
SEND TO 
atriff@mdc.edu

The paper must show a heading like this:

__________________________________________
Philosophy Paper First Draft
Phi 2010 T 5:40pm
Doe, John

Title (bold, no italics)

trans and detrans-ition

that trans de-transition is proof that trans is not an arrival. 

this morning I made the point that transitioning is neither ... nor, which is not necessarily rooted in physical traits. the neither ... nor may explain trans' dysphoria (though dysphoria and trans are neither necessary nor sufficient for one another).

After transitioning, some people find that their dysphoria isn't fixed or solved, even if they reliably pass as their desired gender. This was true for both Cass and Jackie, the 25-year-old living outside Seattle. It was also true for Ryan, a detransitioned man who found another, more unexpected way to deal with his dysphoria.

here is my own take at miami.bourbaki. 

homework chapter 3 (consequentialism & egoism)

1. explain the difference between act and rule utilitarianism (target your answer in following the example of the terminally ill woman on p. 156).
2. jeremy bentham and john stuart mill have different views on the nature of happiness. explain.
3. read the death penalty example on page 160 between retentionists and abolitionists. the discussion pivots on utilitarianism.
4. answer questions 1-5 from section 3.3 p. 169

Review for midterm: tomorrow Wednesday at 12pm, Room 2221

Gabriela Franco and Jaime Alvarez Duque (from T,R 9:50am class) are offering a study session tomorrow Wednesday at 12:00 PM. Room 2221. 

 Thanks!

Review this Wednesday from 8-10am @ Honors College Lounge

Aidin Alejo and Laura Campos are having a study session this Wednesday from 8 am to 10 am @ the Honors College lounge in Wolfson Campus.

Thanks!

Review: Today, 2pm. Interamerican Campus

Ivette Prieto-Castro y Mario Alvarez ((Phi 2010 Interamerican Campus) offer a review at Interamerican Campus at 2pm @ the Honors Lounge. 

Thanks!

Reviews for midterm: Monday 12:30-:1:30pm at Wolfson

This is Nicole Zambrano & Katerina Golubev  from Phi 2010 T,R class at 11:15. We are available on Monday from 12:30 to 1:30 pm, and again on Wednesday after 3:00 pm.

Location: Seating area behind building 1, by the fountain, would be okay since the library is still closed. 

Thanks!

student assistants, all phi 2010 classes, spring 2019

phi 2010 Honors 10am
Kristen Marie Medina
Diego Arturo Torres
Arianna Cruz

phi 2010 Honors 11am
incomplete

phi 2010 IAC
Thalia Rivero
Omar Sierra

phi 2010 T, 5:40 pm
Julissa Fuste
Alejandra Romero
Dylan Morrison
Kalani Duran

to all my student assistants: this is the time to coordinate a group-review, or personal review to help your classmates!!

send me an email and I'll send a blast to students and post it here.

thanks for your leadership. 

after reading your second assignment I find the following........

1. a good deal of preparation goes into the first two paragraphs. you need to find THE BEST TWO ARGUMENTS you can find, for your thesis and for your counter. not just something you heard or pops into your head. you need THE BEST ARGUMENTS. once you have them present them in the best possible language.

SO, YOU NEED MORE RESEARCH!

some of you write in this sort of "casual talk," which doesn't apply here. these points must be presented not necessarily in a technical jargon, but neither casually. apply journalistic standard here. you say it in a way that is accessible but INFORMED. write in a way that shows that YOU KNOW YOUR TOPIC UPSIDE DOWN. what that mean is that YOU NEED MORE RESEARCH. go back to those points and make them really good.

2. remember that each point has two parts: the first sentence states the point. look at this example from a "government surveillance advocate": 

In times of heightened public security, moderate government surveillance is beneficial. Public opinion polls conducted in European cities, during the spike in terrorist chats, show that surveillance can actually detect and neutralize potential harm and save people from harm.     

or this,

The legalization of marijuana is a good economy policy.Under the rule of law, legalization will create jobs and economic opportunities in the formal economy -instead of thriving in the illicit market.

the first sentence (yellow) presents, the second, (orange) explains.

3. do not add points in the subsequent paragraphs that you HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED. this shows lack of coherence.

4. Start each paragraph by stating who talks: Use always the prefix "advocates" or "critics." So, you have "government surveillance advocates," "factory farm advocates," "#metoo advocates," "A.I. advocates," "global warming advocates," etc, and the same with critics. don't mind the cacophony. this paper has many different points and the reader has to make sense of them.

5. DO NOT SHOW BIAS AGAINST YOUR COUNTER. generally your counter's paragraph is less elaborated and properly thought than your thesis. this is not good. they only have three paragraphs. MAKE THEM LOOK GOOD.

List of Student Assistants (REGULAR non-honors CLASSES)

T,R 9:50am

Jaime Duque
Gabriela Franco
Jeremiah Duhart
Juan Oramas

T,R 11:15am

Katerina Golubev
Nicole Zambrano
Bayardo Lopez
Sebastian Shironoshita

T, 5:40pm

Kelvin Amaya
Benjamin Alveo
Geoffry Robbins

A student assistant is a person who help his/her classmates. How? a- counseling how to study for the upcoming midterm exam, b- coordinating a phi 2010 review, c- telling as tudent how to execute this or that, d- advising with the final paper, i.e., helping his/her classmates to pass the class and learn the love for philosophy. 

Qualifications: A student assistant is a [B+ - A+] achiever. 
Returns? a- status! (you're a role model) b- prestige (it looks good in your resume), c- your professor's explicit advocacy (yes, I write good letters of recommendation), x-tra points (as if you needed them ;=)

List of student assistants (HONORS CLASSES)

Interamerican Campus 

Ivette Castro-Prieto
Gabriela Herrera
Carlos de la Torre
Mario Álvarez

Wolfson Campus 

MWF 10 AM 
Aidin Alejo
Thomas Thielen (?)
Laura Campos
Stephanie Elmir

 MWF 11AM
Estefany Lopez
Mark Goldberg
Jesus Cruz
Yonah Elorza
Luiza Martinez
Jessica Garcia

A student assistant is a person who help his/her classmates. How? a- counseling how to study for the upcoming midterm exam, b- coordinating a phi 2010 review, c- telling as tudent how to execute this or that, d- advising with the final paper, i.e., helping his/her classmates to pass the class and learn the love for philosophy. 

Qualifications: A student assistant is a [B+ - A+] achiever. 
Return? a- status! (you're a role model) b- prestige (it looks good in your resume), c- your professor's unequivocal advocacy (yes, I write good letters of recommendation), x-tra points (as if you needed them ;=)