chapter 3, ETHICS, fall 2025

let's start with this video,

click here for my intro to moral norms,

what are defensible moral judgments?

click here for my lectures on ethics,

Homework 7 (ETHICS, CHAPTER)

 click here for more information.

TRES MODELOS: UNO CAPITALISTA LIBERAL Y DOS SOCIALISTAS

 

ESTADOS UNIDOS: LA LIBERTAD COMO PUNTO DE PARTIDA 

Las colonias americanas declaran su independencia en 1776. En el centro de su proyecto político aparecen ciertos derechos que no deberían depender de la voluntad de un gobernante. El lema de Locke: la vida, la libertad y la búsqueda de la felicidad. En 1787 se redacta la Constitución. Se establece un gobierno limitado, con separación de poderes y mecanismos de control. 

La idea fundamental del pacto norteamericano es que el gobierno no es dueño de los ciudadanos. Su autoridad tiene límites. La tradición liberal parte de una sospecha: el poder político, incluso cuando dice actuar en nombre del bien común, puede convertirse en una amenaza para el individuo. 

De ahí la división de poderes. Por eso importa la libertad de expresión. Por eso importa la propiedad privada. Por eso importa que el gobierno pueda ser cuestionado y reemplazado. Toda historia tiene su lado oscuro. 

El liberalismo no exige que el Estado permanezca indiferente ante toda desigualdad. En la historia estadounidense hubo legislación laboral, seguridad social, educación pública y políticas de protección social. Desde la esclavitud del siglo xviii hasta hoy, el país ha demostrado su capacidad de cambio social.

Del experimento americano aprendemos un punto de equilibrio importante: que en la economía de mercado (capitalismo) pueden coexistir mecanismos de redistribución y de protección social. 

Lo crucial no es si el Estado debe hacer algo para corregir las desigualdades, sino hasta dónde puede llegar sin destruir las libertades que está obligado a proteger. 

CUBA (VENEZUELA): LA IGUALDAD COMO PUNTO DE PARTIDA Y PROYECTO DE ESTADO 

Cuba, 1959. La revolución acaba de triunfar. Batista ha huido. Existe un enorme descontento con la corrupción, la represión y las desigualdades sociales del régimen anterior. Fidel Castro llega al poder con promesas de justicia social, soberanía nacional y transformación política. Muchos cubanos esperan una sociedad más digna, con educación, salud y oportunidades para todos. En 1959 comienza la reforma agraria. 

En 1960 se nacionalizan numerosas empresas y propiedades. El Estado va concentrando el control de la economía. 

En abril de 1961 Castro declara el carácter socialista de la revolución. El país se alinea con la Unión Soviética. En 1976 entra en vigor una nueva Constitución que establece al Partido Comunista como la fuerza dirigente superior de la sociedad y del Estado. 

Si el Estado controla los medios de producción, ¿quién controla al Estado? 

Pensemos en el trabajador. En una sociedad liberal, el trabajador puede buscar otro empleo, crear una empresa, asociarse con otros, negociar su salario o criticar al gobierno. En el modelo cubano, el Estado se convierte en el principal empleador, propietario y organizador de la economía. La autonomía económica del individuo se ve aplastada. 

Cuando el poder se concentra en un partido único, la oposición pierde la posibilidad efectiva de sustituir al gobierno mediante una competencia política plural. La igualdad se convierte en un dictado administrado desde arriba.  

¿Si el sistema prometía garantizar las necesidades de todos, por qué no lograba producir suficiente riqueza para satisfacerlas? 

El castrismo (el chavismo) destruyó el tejido empresarial privado que sostenía la vida cotidiana del país. El Estado pasó a controlar actividades que antes realizaban miles de propietarios independientes. Y aquí surge la primera cuestión macroeconómica: el Estado no puede simplemente sustituir a los propietarios. En términos económicos, lo que hizo fue sustituir un sistema descentralizado de toma de decisiones por una burocracia administrativa. 

¿Qué ocurre cuando desaparece el propietario? La pérdida de las fuerzas productivas. Pongamos un ejemplo sencillo. 

Un cubano (venezolano) tiene una pequeña cafetería. Es dueño del local, compra los ingredientes, contrata a dos empleados, conoce a sus clientes y sabe qué productos se venden mejor. Si la cafetería funciona, gana dinero. Si administra mal, pierde dinero. Si no atiende bien, los clientes se irán a otra cafetería. 

El dueño tiene un incentivo permanente para: 

• Cuidar sus equipos y sus instalaciones. 

• Evitar desperdicios. 

• Comprar mejor y negociar precios. 

• Innovar y mejorar el servicio. 

• Invertir para ampliar el negocio. 

• Conservar a sus clientes. 

Su interés personal está vinculado a la productividad del establecimiento. Ahora imaginemos que el Estado se apropia de la cafetería. El antiguo propietario desaparece como agente económico. En su lugar aparece un administrador nombrado por una autoridad superior. Ese administrador no necesariamente pierde su empleo si la cafetería funciona mal. Tampoco necesariamente recibe una recompensa si logra duplicar las ventas. Sus decisiones dependen de una estructura burocrática, de un presupuesto asignado y de instrucciones administrativas. 

Aquí observamos una diferencia económica fundamental: el propietario asume las consecuencias de sus decisiones; el administrador estatal no asume las mismas consecuencias patrimoniales. 

Veamos los cuatro mecanismos económicos que se deterioran (según la macroeconomía).

A: Los incentivos: En economía, el incentivo es el estímulo que orienta las decisiones de las personas. 

El empresario tiene un interés directo en aumentar la productividad porque una parte de las ganancias le corresponde y porque puede perder su inversión si fracasa. Cuando se elimina la propiedad privada y se debilita la relación entre esfuerzo, resultado y recompensa, ese incentivo desaparece. 

—¿Para qué voy a esforzarme más si mi remuneración no depende significativamente de cuánto produzca? Un sistema económico necesita mecanismos que conecten el esfuerzo con sus consecuencias. 

B: La asignación de recursos: En una economía de mercado, los precios transmiten información primordial. 

Si un restaurante no tiene clientes, debe cambiar su oferta, mejorar su servicio o cerrar. El mercado transmite millones de señales que permiten ajustar las decisiones de producción y de consumo. En una economía centralizada, estas decisiones recaen en funcionarios que deben determinar qué producir, cuánto producir, dónde distribuirlo y a qué precio. 

El problema es de información: ningún organismo central dispone automáticamente del conocimiento local y cambiante que poseen millones de consumidores, comerciantes, trabajadores y productores. 

C. La inversión y la acumulación de capital: El propietario tiene razones para reinvertir sus beneficios: comprar maquinaria, reparar el establecimiento, ampliar el negocio o contratar trabajadores. 

Cuando la propiedad está sujeta a expropiaciones o cambios arbitrarios, disminuye la seguridad para invertir. 

¿Qué sentido tiene arriesgar tus ahorros en una actividad cuyo resultado podría ser confiscado por el Estado? ¿La consecuencia? Reducción de la inversión privada, de la modernización y de la acumulación de capital productivo. 

D. La competencia y la innovación: Cuando hay varios negocios independientes, cada uno intenta atraer clientes. 

Un restaurante introduce un plato nuevo. Otro mejora los precios. Otro amplía sus horarios. Otro ofrece un servicio más rápido. La competencia obliga a mejorar. Cuando el Estado monopoliza una actividad, el consumidor pierde alternativas. Si el servicio es malo, no puede acudir a otro proveedor. 

El monopolio administrativo puede sobrevivir incluso cuando no satisface adecuadamente las necesidades de sus clientes. ¿Qué ocurre si se debilitan los incentivos a la inversión, se deteriora la organización productiva, se pierde conocimiento empresarial y se reduce la competencia? La productividad cae. La inversión disminuye, y el capital productivo se deteriora. El país no solo distribuye peor lo que produce, sino que produce menos de lo que podría producir. 

DISTRIBUIR LAS RIQUEZAS YA EXISTENTES NO ES LO MISMO QUE CREAR NUEVAS RIQUEZAS. 

Lo anterior describe el fracaso del socialismo en Cuba y Venezuela. 

Un gobierno puede redistribuir recursos mediante impuestos, subsidios o transferencias, pero no puede garantizar indefinidamente el bienestar de la población si destruye o debilita los mecanismos que los generan. 

6. ¿Puede el burócrata sustituir al empresario? El empresario no es simplemente alguien que tiene dinero. Es alguien que descubre oportunidades, asume riesgos, coordina recursos, toma decisiones y responde por sus resultados. Es una máquina microeconómica. 

El Estado, por su parte, puede construir carreteras, financiar hospitales, regular mercados, establecer normas y prestar servicios públicos. No existe incompatibilidad alguna entre un Estado activo y una economía productiva. 

El problema surge cuando se pretende sustituir sistemáticamente la iniciativa descentralizada de millones de agentes económicos. Un funcionario puede administrar una empresa con eficiencia. Pero un aparato burocrático centralizado tiene dificultades para reproducir simultáneamente: 

• El conocimiento local de cada productor. 

• La información de cada consumidor. 

• Los incentivos para innovar. 

• La responsabilidad patrimonial. 

• La competencia entre alternativas. 

• La capacidad de corregir errores rápidamente. 

Hay un elemento político adicional: si el mismo poder que administra la economía controla también los mecanismos de crítica, oposición y fiscalización, ¿quién puede exigirle que rectifique? Aquí retomamos nuestra discusión anterior sobre la libertad y la igualdad. 

La libertad económica no es solo el derecho a enriquecerse. Es también la posibilidad de emprender, experimentar, equivocarse, competir y construir algo propio. 

La propiedad privada tiene, en este sentido, una función económica e institucional: permite que las decisiones se distribuyan entre muchos individuos, en lugar de concentrarse en una autoridad central. Imaginemos dos cafeterías. 

La primera pertenece a un propietario cubano (o venezolano). Se levanta temprano, compra los ingredientes, calcula los gastos, atiende a sus clientes y procura que el negocio prospere. Si tiene éxito, puede ahorrar, ampliar el local y contratar a otra persona. Si fracasa, pierde su inversión. La segunda pertenece al Estado. 

El administrador no. El administrador recibe instrucciones, cuenta con un presupuesto y debe cumplir determinados objetivos administrativos. Si faltan ingredientes, debe solicitarlos a otra dependencia. Si se rompe una máquina, debe esperar su reparación. Si los clientes están descontentos, no necesariamente puede cambiar los precios, los proveedores o la organización del establecimiento. 

No es que el administrador estatal no quiera hacer bien su trabajo. Es que sus posibilidades de actuar están coaccionadas por una estructura que no controla. 

Ahora, imaginemos que el gobierno decide que las dos cafeterías pasen a ser propiedad del Estado porque la propiedad privada genera desigualdad. 

Desaparece la primera. El gobierno ha logrado eliminar una brecha en la propiedad. Pero también ha eliminado una fuente independiente de producción, empleo, inversión y conocimiento. 

Y si el Estado no logra reemplazar eficazmente todo lo que hacía aquella cafetería, la sociedad no se vuelve más rica ni necesariamente más igualitaria en términos de bienestar. Se vuelve más pobre. 

La igualdad de propiedad no implica igualdad de bienestar. 

Y la igualdad de resultados no puede sostenerse indefinidamente si desaparecen los incentivos y las instituciones que permiten producir riqueza.

HOMEWORK #9 TRES PÁRRAFOS DEL PHILOSOPHY PAPER

 Click here for more information.

PROS AND CONS TOPICS FOR FINAL PAPER

 Click here for more information.

Topics for your philosophy paper

Here are some of the most talked-about topics right now. Each entry is linked to a Wikipedia article. Look at the table on the left-hand side of the Wikipedia entry and find the different angles "FOR" and "AGAINST" any given topic. If you don't see the arguments "against" the topic in the entry, you must do your research (and I'll help). 

NEVER CITE WIKIPEDIA IN YOUR PAPER; LOOK AT THE WIKIPEDIA CITATIONS AND CITE THEM.  


Abortion vs. Pro-Life 

The abortion debate—often framed as pro-choice versus pro-life—is a central issue in philosophy because it forces us to grapple with foundational questions about moral status, bodily autonomy, and the definition of a person. At its core, the debate hinges on a conflict between two deeply held ethical principles: the sanctity of human life and the right to self-determination. 

Factory farms and/or Animal welfare

(Generally, it is little appreciated that this topic has ecological and human/animal dimensions: the link between animal-processed foods, environmental degradation, and vegetarianism, all tied to the still obscure field of animal ethics).

Gun control vs. Second Amendment

(A problem intersecting Second Amendment rights, civil rights, policy, government interference, mental health, and terrorism).

Social media & culture 

(Privacy issues, information overload, cyberbullying, fake news, social isolation, net addiction, etc).

Climate change 

(Global warming is at the forefront of today's scientific and sociopolitical discourse; many issues here are worth discussing: what is nature? Generational responsibility, presentism, economic growth, etc.

Capital Punishment vs. Abolitionism 

Free Speech vs. Hate Speech 

Online free expression must yield when it causes social harm. Counter: Restricting speech online undermines democratic discourse. Urgent amid misinformation, hate speech, and debates over platform regulation. 

AI (doomers vs. skeptics vs. pragmatists)

The ongoing debate surrounding the future of artificial intelligence is fundamentally shaped by three core perspectives: doomers, skeptics, and pragmatists, each playing a vital role in determining how humanity builds and regulates technology.

Paper proposal sample (this Thursday)

1- Heading (in Times New Roman, 12-point). 

On the left side, write your name (last name first), "Philosophy Paper Proposal."
2- Write the title in bold letters, middle-aligned.
3- The first paragraph has your thesis, followed by a brief explanation supporting it. The second paragraph presents the counterthesis, followed by a brief explanation supporting it. So-and-so depends on your paper topic (e.g., Second Amendment advocates, Climate Change skeptics, etc.). 

4- Try to mimic the model below. 

 
______________________________________________

Rodriguez, Juan 
Philosophy Paper Proposal

Phi 2010 Honors

  Even in factory farms, animals should be protected against abuse

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

         Factory Farms advocates disagree, arguing that despite animals' suffering during slaughter, current regulations are necessary to provide much-needed food products at competitive market prices. 

Counters to Libet's Neurophysiological Expèriment

These two arguments are a pretty good counter to Libet's experiment.

1. The Empirical Blow: The Readiness Potential is Just Background Noise.

For decades, Libet's defenders argued that the readiness potential was the brain's unconscious mind making a definitive "command decision" to move before the conscious mind knew it. 

The Refutation: Led by neuroscientist Aaron Schurger, modern studies proved that the readiness potential is actually just neural noise—spontaneous, rhythmic fluctuations of electrical activity that occur constantly in the motor cortex. 

The Analogies: Imagine a buoy bobbing up and down on ocean waves. Libet only looked at the data when a wave was so high that it crashed over a wall (the threshold for moving a finger). It's like saying the ocean "decided" to crash half a second early. In reality, it was just background fluctuations that finally crossed a line. 

The Verdict: Brain activation preceding conscious decisions reflects the ongoing decision-making process, not a pre-determined decision itself. There is no hidden puppet-master making the choice early. 

2. The Conceptual Blow: The "Homunculus" Category Error 

Even if the brain shows early activity, attributing the choice to "the brain" instead of "the person" is a logical failure known as a category mistake. 

The Refutation: Libet's interpretation forces a false separation between "You" (a disembodied conscious observer) and "Your Brain" (a biological machine doing things to you). 

The Verdict: Free-will advocates rightly point out that your brain's pre-conscious processing is still you. A conscious decision requires background mental machinery to prepare options, weigh attention, and gather data. Discovering that your brain hums with activity before you finalize a choice doesn't mean you didn't choose; it means we are seeing the biological gears of your own mind turning.

Argument Type	Core Claim	Why It's Strong	Why It's Secondary to "Neural Noise"
Neural Noise (Schurger)	The readiness potential is just background brain fluctuations, not a decision.	Completely dismantles the scientific basis of Libet’s data.	The Best Argument. It uses empirical neuroscience to defeat an empirical neuroscience claim.
Category Error	The brain's early processing is part of your identity, not an outside force.	Exposes a fundamental flaw in how materialists define the "self".	Tied for best, as it refutes the metaphysical leaps made from simple EEG charts.
The Conscious Veto ("Free Won't")	The conscious mind can step in and cancel an action before it happens.	Endorsed by Libet himself; preserves a final line of conscious control.	It plays defense. It concedes that the brain starts decisions without you, leaving free will as just an emergency brake.
Metaconsciousness Timing	The time lag is just the delay it takes to reflect on your urge, not the birth of the urge.	Logically bulletproof regarding the limits of human attention and clock-watching tasks.	Relies on psychology/introspection, which hard determinists often dismiss as subjective.
Oversimplified Tasks	Tapping a finger is an autopilot reflex, not a moral or complex choice.	Proves Libet didn't actually test meaningful, deliberative human agency.	Shows the experiment is irrelevant to real life, but doesn't technically disprove its accuracy regarding basic motor acts.

Chapter 5 (From Hard determinism to Libertarianism)

Pincha aquí para la discusión. 

Check this PBS video (by Hank Green).

Emergent properties

¿Cuándo una propiedad es "emergente"? El ejemplo del huracán.

 Ejemplos de emergent properties.

Check this out!

HOMEWORK #7

 Click here for more information.

Students assistants for PHI 2010 HONORS (revised)

Samir Amor Leyva. 

Mathyas Cerda-Siezar.

Jesús Miguel Regalado.

Melany González (as her time permits)

Misky Díaz.

Sebastian Romero.

Juan Subero.

Camilla Cardoso.

Daniela Durruthy.

Logical Behaviorism (for psychologists) and Identity Theory (for neurologists)

Click here for Logical Behaviorism.

Click here for Identity Theory.

A more nuanced discussion of "pro" and "con" positions

AI accelerationist

There is a huge difference between: “AI will be good for humanity.”

and

“Even if AI creates serious risks, delaying its development may create greater risks than continuing it.”

The one above is not technological naïveté. It could be a risk argument.

The accelerationist might reason: 

1. AI could dramatically improve medicine, science, productivity, education, etc.

2. Some AI risks are real but manageable.

3. Technological progress can itself generate the knowledge and tools needed to manage those risks.

4. Regulation can concentrate power by favoring large incumbents.

Therefore, slowing development may be more dangerous than accelerating it.

So the interesting question is not:

“Does this person believe AI is good?”

but:

How does this person weigh uncertain catastrophic risks against potentially enormous benefits and the costs of delaying innovation?

That is a serious philosophical position.

Pro-life position

A simplistic interpretation is: Pro-life => opposition to women's autonomy

This is another side of that coin:

Human beings have (or should have) moral status before birth, and the deliberate termination of that developing human life requires moral justification.

Gradual moral status of the fetus: It's undeniable that the fetus acquires greater moral status as it develops—for example, we know that its capacity for consciousness, sensation, or independent functioning increases. It makes sense to assume that the fetus should develop healthily. 

This does not yet tell us whether abortion is permissible. 

It only says the fetus's moral significance may vary across stages of pregnancy.

Woman's Autonomy

A woman uses autonomy not only to say yes or no to her pregnancy. 

How to manage the pregnancy: She can make decisions about prenatal care, medical treatment, diet, exercise, work, travel, and which medical procedures to accept or refuse, subject to medical and legal constraints.

Whether and how to give birth: She can participate in decisions about the circumstances of delivery—for example, choice of provider or hospital, pain management, and whether to accept or refuse particular interventions where legally and medically permissible.

What happens after birth: She can decide how to exercise parental responsibility, such as breastfeeding, childcare, education, medical care, and whether to raise the child herself or place the child for adoption.

Keep in mind that a fetus's future can be prevented by miscarriage, stillbirth, or a lethal developmental condition, none of which involves an intentional decision to terminate the pregnancy.

Relational moral status

1. The fetus has moral significance because it is a developing human being with a future, even if that significance is not identical to that of a born person.

Again, this does not entail either “therefore abortion is wrong” or “therefore abortion is permissible.” 

It just establishes a moral consideration that must be weighed against other considerations, such as bodily autonomy.

2. Scientifically speaking, “fetus” is a developmental term, not a moral or legal category.

In human development, we have: Embryo: from fertilization through approximately the 8th week of development; Fetus: from approximately the 9th week of development until birth. 

At birth: the developing human is called a newborn or neonate.

3. So, strictly speaking, the transition from fetus to neonate occurs at birth, because the terminology distinguishes prenatal from postnatal development. 

That position can coexist with beliefs in: equality between men and women, bodily autonomy, contraception, social welfare, secular government, exceptions for particular circumstances.

The crucial philosophical question is not: “Are you pro-life or pro-choice?”

but this one: 

What moral status does the fetus possess, and what follows from that status for the legitimacy of abortion?

That is a serious philosophical position.

HOMEWORK #6 EMPIRICISM AND KANTIAN THEORY

Click here for more information.

Empiricism (a video)

 Click here for more information.

ESQUEMA GENERAL PARA ENTENDER LA FILOSOFÍA DE LA MENTE

PHILOSOPHY OF MIND

Comparative Schema

Position	What is the mind?	Relation to the physical	Can the mind cause physical events?	Main problem / counterexample
CARTESIAN DUALISM	The mind is an immaterial thinking substance.	Mind ≠ body. The mind and body are two different substances.	Yes. Mind and body interact.	Interaction problem: How can an immaterial mind interact with a physical body?
LOGICAL BEHAVIORISM	A mental state is a behavioral state or behavioral disposition.	Mental states are reducible to behavior. MS = BS	Mental states are explained through behavior.	Perfect Pretender thought experiment: someone can behave as if they are in pain without feeling pain. Super Spartan thought experiment: someone can feel pain while suppressing all pain behavior.
IDENTITY THEORY	A mental state is a brain state.	Mind = brain. MS = BrS	The physical brain causes behavior; no separate immaterial substance is needed.	Nagel's Bats: knowing all the physical facts does not tell us what it is like to experience the world as a bat. Lewis's Martian thought experiment: something can feel pain without having the human neurophysiological state associated with pain.
FUNCTIONALISM	A mental state is a functional/causal state—a state defined by what it does within a system.	Mental states are identified with functional roles. MS = FS	Yes. Mental states can cause other mental states and behavior.	Putnam's Inverted Spectrum: two people may have the same functional state but different qualitative experiences. Lewis' Mad Man thought experiment: someone may have pain while exhibiting a completely different functional response.
EPIPHENOMENALISM	The mind is an ineffective byproduct of physical processes.	Physical → Mental	No. The brain affects the mind, but the mind does not affect the brain or behavior.	Causal problem: if mental states have no causal power, how can we explain our apparently causally effective thoughts, feelings, and reports about them?
MENTAL IRREDUCIBILITY / PRIMITIVE PROPERTIES	Mental states are irreducible properties that cannot be reduced to behavior, brain states, or functional states.	Mental properties emerge from physical phenomena but are not reducible to them.	Yes. Mental processes can have their own causal role. The role is free will.	Emergence problem: how do irreducible mental properties arise from physical processes?

The Central Questions

All of these positions can be understood as different answers to one fundamental question:

WHAT EXACTLY IS A MENTAL STATE?

• Behaviorism: a mental state is behavior / a behavioral disposition.

• Identity Theory: a mental state is a brain state.

• Functionalism: a mental state is a functional/causal role.

• Mental Irreducibility: a mental state cannot be reduced to any of these.

The General Movement

MIND → BEHAVIOR → BRAIN → FUNCTION → IRREDUCIBLE MENTAL PROPERTIES

The counterexamples are important because each one challenges the proposed reduction:

Behaviorism
→ behavior does not guarantee the corresponding mental state.

Identity Theory
→ knowing the physical state does not necessarily tell us what the experience is like.

Functionalism
→ the same functional role does not necessarily guarantee the same qualitative experience.

Therefore: mental states may possess properties that are private, subjective, first-person, and irreducible to behavioral, physical, or functional descriptions.

El empirismo de John Locke

Pincha aquí para más información.

La duda que nos lleva a la certeza (de acuerdo a Descartes)

Para más información, pincha aquí.

Mi salsa de tomate (importante para cocineros)☝️

 Pincha aquí.

Can one imagine "a point" as counter to Kant's "space mind experiment?" Yes and No :)

1. In geometry: a point has zero extension, but it is not nothing

For example: In Euclidean geometry, a point is an object with position but no length, area, or volume.

So, in one dimension:

$$\text{length of a point}=0$$

That doesn't mean that the point is identical to the number $0$.

For example, imagine on a line, the points

$$-5,\quad 0,\quad 7$$

all have zero length. Yet they are different points because they occupy different positions.

So:

zero is a measure; a point is a location. 

2. In topology, the distinction becomes even clearer:

Topology doesn't fundamentally care about length, area, or volume. 

It cares about neighborhoods, continuity, connectedness, and how points relate to one another.

A topological point is an element of a space:

$$p\in X.$$

The point $p$ can have no size whatsoever and still be structurally significant.

For example, consider the interval

$$[0,1].$$

The point $0$ is a single point. Its measure is zero. But topologically it isn't equivalent to “nothing”: removing its left bound it gives

$$(0,1],$$

which is a different topological space.

Even more strikingly, removing a single point from the circle $S^1$ produces something homeomorphic to a line (sorry I cannot reproduce a drawing here), the result would be:

$$$$S1−{p}≅R.S^1-\{p\}\cong \mathbb R.

So a point can have zero size while having important structural consequences.

3. Is a point therefore “no space”?

Here we need to be careful.

A point is zero-dimensional, but that doesn't mean it is “outside space.”

A point is an element of a space.

Think of:

$$\mathbb R$$

as the space and

$$3$$

as one of its points.

The point 3 doesn't contain any interval around itself. But the space does. Every “neighborhood” of 3 contains other points:

$$(2.9,3.1).$$

This gives us an interesting distinction:

The point itself has no extension; but its neighborhood expresses its spatial situation.

Why is that?

Because dimension is not the same thing as size. 

A point has zero size in every direction, so its dimension is 0.

There are two ways to understand this: geometrically and topologically, and the topological one is more interesting.

Geometrically

A line has one independent direction:

$$\longrightarrow$$

You can move along it in one dimension. A plane has two:

$$\rightarrow \quad \uparrow$$

A point has neither. You can't move in any direction while staying within the point.

So: 

point → 0 dimensions; 

line → 1 dimension; 

plane → 2 dimensions; 

ordinary space → 3 dimensions;

This distinction becomes very important philosophically.

4. There's a beautiful distinction coming up:

Let's come back to our Kantian experiment.

 ¿Can we imagine a room without objects, but cannot imagine the room without space?

Yes! 

You can imagine a point without extension:

$$\bullet$$

but you cannot really get a spatial point without some spatial structure in which “point” has its meaning.**

However, 

A point has no space of its own. That is to say: it cannot function as a point except within a space.

That's different from saying that a point is “no space.”

___________________

** A point has zero extension, but it nevertheless has position.

Where does that position come from?

Not from the point itself.

If you opened up the point and looked inside, you'd find no spatial content explaining its position. Its position is determined ONLY relationally:

It is here rather than there.

And "here rather than there" presupposes a field of possible locations.

It doesn't mean that you need to physically draw a line around the point. 

The concept of a spatial point is incomplete without the possibility of spatial relations.

A new hypothesis in evolutionary biology challenges a prevailing consensus

A new study (2026) led by Duke University researchers, recently published in Science, challenges a long-held explanation regarding primate brain evolution. 

Richard Key is leading the new hypothesis (Kay is a professor of evolutionary anthropology).

The prevailing consensus held that the massive expansion of the neocortex—particularly the frontal regions—was linked to the development of higher cognitive abilities. 

In other words: more frontal brain → greater thinking capacity

(I'm guilty of repeating this point to my students!) 😡

The Duke University research team virtually reconstructed the brains of various fossil primates based on the spaces left inside their skulls. By comparing living and fossil species, they found that neocortical expansion correlated more closely with reliance on vision than with disproportionate frontal lobe expansion.

In other words, a large brain did not necessarily evolve first to produce more complex cognition; it was linked to processing an increasingly demanding visual world.

Do you see the "causal fallacy"—confusing correlation with causation— at play here? 

Shame? Not for the skeptic! 😉

HOW TO EXPLAIN SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS

Click here for more information.

Review for our Quiz (2025)

 Click here for more information.

Review for Quiz #1

The presocratics.

Philosophy and its branches.

Fallacies.

Mind experiments.

What is truth.

Necessary and sufficient conditions.

Criteria of Adequacy of Scientific Theories.

Logical and causal possibility.

Cause and effect. 

La futurofobia (y sus consecuencias económicas)

 1. ¿El miedo al riesgo no favorece acaso la posición competitiva de Anthropic?

Anthropic fue concebido precisamente en torno a la seguridad de la IA. 

For the sake of argument, el problema central de la IA deviene en:

¿Qué otra empresa está desarrollando modelos suficientemente poderosos sin perder el control sobre ellos?

Anthropic parece haber convertido una preocupación social en ventaja competitiva.

El mensaje está implícito:

La IA será extraordinariamente poderosa, al punto de destrucción del género humano. Por eso debemos confiar en aquellos que toman la seguridad más en serio.

¿Eso no es marketing? Aunque no necesariamente sea solo eso.

Veamos la asimetría: ¿puede o no el miedo a la IA aumentar el valor (de la especialidad) de Anthropic? 

Cuando la IA no era peligrosa, ¿no era la seguridad una prioridad secundaria? 

Y si de la noche a la mañana el peligro es catastrófico, la seguridad se convierte en... bueno...

2. El discurso apocalíptico favorece la regulación

Supongamos que desde ahora surgieran regulaciones: 

evaluaciones de seguridad, 

auditorías, 

requisitos de infraestructura, 

controles sobre modelos avanzados, 

obligaciones de reporte, etc.

¿Quién está en condiciones óptimas para ejecutarlas?

Las empresas capitalizadas que ya cuentan con equipos jurídicos, de investigación de seguridad, de infraestructura y de relaciones institucionales. 

Fenómeno clásico de la economía política: la regulación como barrera de entrada para posibles competidores.

Si Anthropic dice: "Los modelos futuros podrían desarrollar prácticas que ni siquiera comprendemos". 

Le sigue la respuesta política: "Entonces necesitamos controles más rigurosos".

Controles que dificultan mucho la entrada de nuevos competidores.  

Otra paradoja:

Anthropic puede defender una mayor regulación en nombre de la seguridad y, al mismo tiempo, beneficiarse de que dicha regulación limite a sus competidores.

Es casi un incentivo estructural.

3. El miedo desplaza la discusión de AI propiamente dicha, hacia la autoridad sobre AI

Anthropic ocupa una posición peculiar: se presenta simultáneamente como fabricante e intérprete privilegiado del problema.

El valor económico parece ser indirecto: influencia regulatoria, acceso a los gobiernos, legitimidad institucional, cobertura mediática, capacidad para atraer talento y diferenciación frente a otros laboratorios.

¿Quién gana cuando le tenemos miedo al "más allá?"  

Fallacies (watch out, most of info you get from sources is fallacious)

A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. Here are some examples:

Begging the Question: The argument's conclusion is used as one of its premises. Basically the proof is assumed.
 

A: He's mad right now.
B: How do you know?
A: Because he's really angry.

Of course smoking causes cancer. The smoke from cigarettes is a carcinogen!

Prosecutor to defendant: So how did you feel when you killed your wife?

Ad hominem (or Against the Person): When someone tries to win an argument by denigrating its presenter (favorite fallacy used by politicians and the media to put down an enemy)

"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."

"Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine."

Argumentum ad Populum (Literally "Argument to the People"): Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument.

Ex: "The Bold and the Listless must be a great book. It’s been on the best seller list for 8 weeks."

Appeal to ignorance (ad ignorantiam): It has two forms: The fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. Ad ignorantiam wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.

"She hasn't said she doesn't like you, right? So she's probably interested. Call her up."

"Nobody has conclusively proven that the Yeti doesn't exist, therefore it must exist."

 "I thought I had every reason to think I was doing fine leading the group; no one complained."
 
Hasty Generalization: You are guilty of hasty generalization when jumping into conclusion about all things of a certain type based on evidence that concerns only a few things of that type (favorite argument used by politicians and ideologues).  

"The department of law enforcement in Miami is corrupt. Five police officers in three different departments were involved in drug dealing in 2017" (right answer: Miami has  4,780 police employees, i.e., 5 corrupt officers are 0.16% of the force).  
 
"Men are toxic! It's crystal clear:  They perpetrate over 76% of the violent crime in the US." (right answer: violent men committing violent crimes constitute 6% of the population of males in the US).

Appeal to Authority: A claim is accepted because not because of its merit, but because of the authority (power, fame, etc) of the person saying it.  

"Pacifism is a good idea because the brilliant scientist Einstein advocated it."

"If the Pope says it, it must be true."  

 "Nobody is a better judge than public opinion."

Red Herring: This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first. 

Daughter: "I'm so hurt that Todd broke up with me, Mom." 
Mother: "Just think of all the starving children in Africa, honey. Your problems will seem pretty insignificant then."

Appeal to Fear: To use threat or harm to advance an argument. Ex: "If we don’t stop petroleum consumption, global warming will increase. Therefore, we need to stop petroleum consumption immediately." 

False Dilemma: It presumes that there are only two alternatives to a given problem, when in fact there are more than two.  

"Either science can explain how she was cured or else, it's a miracle."

"Since there is nothing good on TV tonight, I will just have to get drunk."

"If you are don't accept our climate catastrophe, then you're a denier!"

False Cause: Supposing that two events are connected when in fact they are not. 

"They had a very successful business. Then they decided to adopt a child, and the business went immediately into the red."

Inconsistency: A person commits the fallacy of inconsistency when he or she makes contradictory claims. 

"I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech. However, when a person like John Dean can influence our youth , you have to draw a line and say no more."

"This is the truth: truth is subjective."

Etimological fallacy: Believing that the present day meaning of a word of concept should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. 

"So-and-so" (a phrase used in the 19th Century) should not be used anymore. It's very offensive! 

Logical and causal possibility (think of mind experiments)

Logical Possiblity:

Something is logically impossible if and only if it violates a law of logic. 

Here is one logical possibility: "President J. F. Kennedy was not killed by Larry Oswald in Texas on November 22, 1963." 

He was indeed killed that day. So, why is it still logically possible? There's no contradiction in assuming Larry Oswald missed his shot or that Kennedy was hurt but survived. 

Causal Possibility:

Something is causally possible if it does not violate law of nature.

Law of non-contradiction: 

Nothing can have and lack property at the same time. 

Examples: "A triangle of four sides," "2 + 2 = 5", "A married bachelor," etc.

Conceivability: 

1. If p is conceivable, it is imaginable (imagination is a mental faculty linked to rationality). An example of that is mind experiments in physics and math. 

Is Superman logically possible? The first step in the evidence that p is possible is to be able to conceive it. Just that. 

We say p is conceivable if its implication can be drawn without it being contradictory, i.e., 

Can Superman be conceived? 

Yes, that's why we talk about him and can even watch him in a movie. 

Now, Clearly, not everything that is conceivable is possible. For example, Superman, dragons, gremlins, and succubi are all conceivable but not possible. 

Why not?  They violate laws of nature.

Remember: If p is conceivable, then from 2. It's logically possible. 

finally,

3. p is causally possible if it doesn't violate a law of nature.  

Now, let's talk a little bit about LAWS OF NATURE: 

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena; they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. 

A law's applicability is limited to circumstances resembling those already observed, and the law may be found to be false when extrapolated. 

How do logical possibility (LP) and causal possibility (CP) relate?

If something is logically impossible, it is causally impossible.

If something is causally possible, it is logically possible. 

LI → CI
CP → LP

Clearly, LI is sufficient for CI. Is it necessary? It would be if CI cannot exist without LI. Let's pursue this point further.

Something cannot be and not be at the same time. 

But time is a causal variable, not a logical one. If time is outside us, then "same time" is sort of cheating for a logical category. 

Logic is aprioristic. And yet, Kant has argued that time is not outside. Of course, being a physicist, you will swear that time is outside since you can work with it mathematically. But that doesn't contradict Kant's point (though we don't have time to pursue that here).