brahman? everywhere, but then

remember our discussion of duck/rabbit?

brahman is nature,

nature is everything there is

man is nature and brahman.

but man destroys nature

so, man  destroys himself

did man learned from brahman?

for IT being nature destroys nature and man

thus, brahman destroys itself

what's the riddle?

we cannot lie to ourselves pretending that we live in this safety isle outside the relationship of brahman/atman, pakriti/purusha.

a more honest relationship between man & nature means recognizing that we are -also- nature. but, what nature? do we even know how to look around? do we really see nature or do we see ourselves outside?

i propose environing as learning to weave one-with-another. let's begin with understanding what's difficult. in aesthetics, there is this category of "ugliness",

the so called unpleasant & unsightly in nature. the different, the awkward, unattractive, the queer. people are definitely afraid of the ugly duck. or the frightful (the putrid smell of the marshes, abandoned animal carcasses in the country site, sulfide vapors coming up from the earth's bowels).

and death?

lord byron (who is not precisely afraid of death) has this to say:

The world was void,

The populous and the powerful was a lump,

Seasonless, herbless, treeless, manless, lifeless,

A lump of death, a chaos of hard clay.

The rivers, lakes, and ocean stood still,

And nothing stirred within their silent depths;

Ships sailorless lay rotting on the sea,

And their masts fell down piecemeal; as they dropp'd

They slept on the abyss without a surge

The waves were dead; the tides were in their grave,

The moon their mistress had expired before;

The winds were withered in the stagnant air,

And the clouds perish'd; Darkness had no need

Of aid from them. She was the universe.

or baudelaire, in fleurs du mal:

Je veux dormir! dormir plutôt que vivre!
Dans un sommeil aussi doux que la mort,
J' établerai mes baisers sans remords
Sur ton beau corps poli comme le cuivre.

I wish to sleep! to sleep rather than live!
In death as sweet as sleep,
I shall remorselessly cover with my kisses
Your lovely body polished like copper.

fearing less, loving more. that's one way to find one's place within nature. mind you the love i'm talking about is awe before the beauty of nature. it's beauty you wish to keep because it's there in its perfection (in hindu "everything that is is perfect").

how about insects (our misunderstood enemies? the spider is a famous character in the upanishads). ants, one of the smartest and most sociable insect. how about roaches? i found this on a website of people inquiring about miami as a place to live:

I've been hearing a lot about these large flying roaches and it's starting to scare me from relocating here. Are they in all homes? Do they bite? I think I could handle seeing them once in a while outside, but if I saw one of these things flying around my house I think I would want to pack my bags and leave!

what should we stop with insects? let's take atman/brahman down to plants. trees (forgotten shade-giving, trunk-bearing, leafy beings). do they talk? do we talk to trees? they say trees like being talked to. talking to a tree is a sign of acute sensibility. suggested homework 4 all of us: let's embrace and kiss a tree. there goes karma back to the universe!   

You're poor you are unprepared, it's a fact

Fresh from the New York Times. The gap between the haves and have-nots is widening:

One reason for the growing gap in achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children (in weekend sports, ballet, music lessons, math tutors, and in overall involvement in their children’s schools), while lower-income families, which are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly stretched for time and resources. This has been particularly true as more parents try to position their children for college, which has become ever more essential for success in today’s economy.

Also in college:

The University of Michigan study, by Susan M. Dynarski and Martha J. Bailey, looked at two generations of students, those born from 1961 to 1964 and those born from 1979 to 1982. By 1989, about one-third of the high-income students in the first generation had finished college; by 2007, more than half of the second generation had done so. By contrast, only 9 percent of the low-income students in the second generation had completed college by 2007, up only slightly from a 5 percent college completion rate by the first generation in 1989.

What I think this shows is how hard it is for many of you to make it. The more reasons to do it! And it can be done.

post for comment

hi class. thanks for the interesting discussion on thursday.

as promised, this my post @ m.bourbaki. leave your comment there.

what to do in a class you don't know what to expect

monday, wednesday & friday classes, i defend the following 3 premises:

* one must be open minded to an unknown topic (particularly if it harbors a form of knowledge).

* provided that my teacher welcomes me and since it was my choice to be in this class, i'll do the best to make this class work for me. keep in mind that one is not aware of all the benefits that a class may provide in the future.

* since i've made clear to my teacher that i prefer a grade of "A" over a "B" or a "C," i have to start working in that direction. wishing alone will not bring this result. what does it take to get an "A"? commitment and focus.

do you agree or disagree?

conquering math, winning heaven

about my discussion on the importance of algebra (well, math in general).

my "winning heaven" is not improvised.

i'm thinking of offering algebra tutoring. seriously.

Are we puppets of our brains?

Some thoughts here (from neuroscience).

the human-traffic pandemic. can we do something about it?

atRifF

this morning, front page of USA Today. the sad story of asia graves reflects the apparently invisible problem of sexual-slavery,  and forced prostitution. sexual-slavery is only a percentage of what is known as human-trafficking.

yes, it happens everywhere and every day. 

the protocol of 2000, includes:

(a) the recruitment, transportation, transfer or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;
 (b) the recruitment, transportation, transfer or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered “trafficking in persons” even if this does not involve any of the means set forth in subparagraph. a “child” means any person under 18 years of age.

see that all the subsets include the "forced" prefix, meaning none of this is consensual. how can one speak of a child "consenting to," or even in the case of asia graves above, when she was 16 and homeless being lured into having sex for money? the new pandemic is not about trafficking with slave markets in the open. these are illegal activities. 

why does it happen? it's all about power!

here are some of the depressing facts:

1- one third of abducted children become child soldiers fueling armed conflicts. Whether by armed forces groups or even government forces
2- these children of 8-14 years old, are used for sexual purposes or as, messengers, but often as body deminers or suicide bombers.
3- some children are trained to massacre and torture, they perform these tasks with enthusiasm.
4- the second cause of disappearance is sexual exploitation. in europe, east countries are still the main empire for trafficking whose benefits exceed today, those of drug traffic. a girl under 10 years is worth € 5,000 while a boy can reach € 8.000.
5- approximately 2.5 million people are trafficked in different parts of the world every year.
6- almost 600,000 to 800,000 people are ill-treated by their bosses or masters.
7- almost 80% victims of human trafficking are female and around 70% of them are sexually exploited in the film industries, advertising industries, fashion industries and private organizations.
8- every year 1.2 million children are trafficked by different agents. the traffickers bring children and engage them in factories, mills and brothels. here the traffickers recruit, transport, transfer children for the purpose of exploitation.
9- 80 % of trafficked people are women and children.
10- 127 countries being involved directly or indirectly.
11- the global market for this activity is estimated at approximately $ 42.5 billion annually.

this is a very complex issue with many legal, ethical, social & political ramifications. just to give you an example, a child is abducted from his tribe in africa, his parents killed. he is drugged and forced to become a child soldier, a deminer, or a suicide bomber. dealing with this problem means eliminating the constant phenomenon of civil war and guerilla & counter-guerilla warfare strife in the african subcontinent and in parts of asia as well as the persecution of these leaders.

take forced domestic servitude,  this includes most middle eastern countries, hong kong, singapore, malaysia and taiwan. for most of these countries, the number of domestic workers run into the hundreds of thousands. there are at least one million domestic workers in saudi arabia under the kafala system. major sources of domestic workers include the philippines, thailand, indonesia, india, bangladesh, pakistan, sri lanka, and ethiopia.

_________

now, is there something we can do? let's begin with our problems. all this is happening right in our backyard!
invariably, exploitation is about power over another human being. this is an ethical problem with social and political ramifications. how do we treat others (as we'd like others to treat ourselves). sure, but how do you educate people to be fair? how do we (as "customers") partake of the temptations of human trafficking? (think of all the possibilities that people, not evil people, but people like you and i, just with some money and a window of opportunity would do for comfort or pleasure).

which brings us to social poverty. this is a plague of lack of opportunities, poor education, social isolation, the fostering of false values that enforce perverse attitudes, etc. this is a matter of personal as well as social involvement. it means that we have to be more proactive about caring for ourselves as well as others! we cannot enjoy prosperity and well-being while so many in our society live the nightmare of asia graves!

any ideas? go on.  

i'm closing this post next monday (tuesday) at 11pm.

Final Review, Chapters 4, 5 (Ethics)

Chapter 4

Numerical identity: Two objects are identical if they are one and the same. Qualitative Identity: Two objects are qualitatively identical if they share the same properties (qualities).

Accidental property:  a property a thing can loose without ceasing to exist.
Essential property: A property a thing cannot loose without ceasing to exist.

Is numerical identity a necessary condition for qualitative identity? Read p. 266.

1. Animalism: Identical persons are those with identical human bodies (i,e., "I'm my body"). Problems: Siamese Twins (Hensel sisters), The "transgender issue". C/E: Locke's tale of the prince and the cobbler (as the cobbler and the prince trade souls, their bodies become redundant).

Soul Theory: Identical persons are those who share the same soul. ("I'm my soul"). The main argument against the soul theory is that there is nothing about the soul theory that one cannot already explain much better by referring to people's behaviors (or character).

2. Locke's Memory Theory of Personal Identity: (I am my memories and my memories are the result of my experiences). Problem: What if one forgets? Is that forgotten part still a part of my identity? Reid’s Tale of the Brave Officer reveals the following: Direct memory: A memory that a person can consciously recall. Indirect memory: A memory that an earlier stage of that person can consciously recall. Real memory: A memory of an event that was experienced by the person remembering it and that was caused by the event it records. Apparent memory: A memory of an event that either didn't happen or was not caused by the event it records.

The main objection against Locke's memory theory is that Locke's Memory Theory is circular. Why? It defines memories in terms of the self and the self in terms of its memories (i.e., I am my memories and my memories are what happens to me.

3. Psychological Continuity Theory: Identical persons are those who are psychologically continuous to one another. That is to say, two people are psychologically continuous if they form part of an overlapping series of persons that quasi-remember and quasi desire the same things.

A note about the relationship between q-memories and personal identity: What  is the difference between quasi-memory and real memory? Take a look at p. 297: A q-memory is an apparent memory caused in the right way by an actual experience. All real memories are q-memories but not all q-memories are real memories, because people can have q-memories of experiences they didn't actually have. Why is it so important that q-memories are caused in the right way?  Because q-memories ground personal identity, though not every way of causing memories is identity preserving. An example would be hypnosis, the hypnotists may give you a memory that happened to someone else. That doesn't make you identical to that person. 

C/E: William’s Reincarnation of Guy Fawkes; Williams' Reduplication Argument. The conclusion from this experiment is that psychological continuity is one-to-many, not one-to-one. That is to say, one can be psychologically continuous to many people at once. C/E Parfit Teletransporter Mind Experiment. Recall that in the second teleporter Po (on earth) and Pc (in Mars) are psychologically continuous, physically identical, but they cannot be the same person (it violates the principle of numeric identity: one person cannot be in two places at the same time). It also suggests that (as when Po dies of cardiac arrest, the Pc survives, which seems to suggest that identity is not necessary for survival.

4. Brain Theory: Identical persons are those who are psychologically continuous with one another and whose psychology is caused by and realized in the same brain. C/A: Parfit’s Division. Triplets, A,B,C. A's brain is transplanted into B & C and A dies. The surviving brothers (A and B) are now physically identical and psychologically continuous with one another. So, if your brain can be divided, the brain theory is flawed.

5. The difference between narratives of the self: 1- diachronic, 2- episodic. The diachronic sees the different stages of the life as part of a continuous series. The episodic sees the different stages as discontinuous episodes. This doesn't mean that the episodic individual cannot make a narrative, but they usually don't. However this integration doesn't seem to be necessary condition for being a person.

We've analyzed the example of Robert and Frank (p. 265) in class. If Frank and Robert are different persons it would be wrong to punish a person for what another person did. Some in the class affirmed they are the same, but that's what we needed to prove. In any case, the Frank-Robert case points to the self as a process.

6. Is personal identity a necessary condition for responsibility? No. Why? We have to talk about character, which is a function of our beliefs, desires, values, etc. Can a person change his/ her character? Remember the differences between Frank and Robert. Though Frank and Robert are numerically identical, they don't have the same character (they are qualitatively different). Yes, they are numerically identical, but their degrees of responsibility have to be taken into consideration. This is the idea behind rehabilitation. Parole boards take into account that if the character of a person changes for the better, the individual's responsibility for a crime is lessened.

What matters for responsibility is character. Character being a function of our beliefs, desires, values, etc and our actions being a function of our character. So numeric identity seems to be neither a necessary condition nor sufficient condition for responsibility. What matters is sameness of character. 

7. Self as PROCESS.

What does it mean to say that the self is "a process." Let's recall Sartre's motto: l'homme n'est pas ce qu'il est, il est ce qu'il n'est pas ("the self is not what it is and it is what it is not"). The self is in constant  de-venir (or be-coming).


Chapter 5

Section 5.1

1. Subjective Absolutism: The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it; Objections: (a) SA makes moral evaluations a matter of personal opinion, (b)impossibility of moral disagreements (one can only agree with the absolutist and the reason is that he believes he's the ONLY ONE THAT'S RIGHT). 

 2. Subjective Relativism: What makes an action right is that it is approved by that person. Objections (same as above). You must be able to tell the difference between the (the absolutist thinks she's the only one that's right, whereas the subjective relativist believes that many people can disagree and still be right at the same time) absolutist and the subjective relativist.

3. Emotivism: The doctrine that moral utterances are expressions of emotions. Basically, the emotivist is saying that right and wrong ARE NOT REALLY OUT THERE!
Counterargument: Blanshard’s Rabbit. What matters is not one's suffering but the victim's suffering (factual force of the victim's suffering). I've brought up the argument of throwing acid into women's faces, as a proof that these women's suffering warrant a moral judgment of condemnation.  

4. Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture. Counterarguments: 1- Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and 2- The fact that cultures are not that different at a deeper level. One can point to differences between "deep" values (moral values, i.e., human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare) and "superficial" values (domestic habits, etiquette, fashion, etc) other cultural values to the effect that most cultures seem to share the same deep moral values.

5. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: Moral standards + factual beliefs = Moral judgments (this is not a formula, just an approximation). What is a factual belief? A belief held by factual evidence (i.e., child abuse is wrong because of the facts we know about psychology, human rights, child development, etc,).

6. Are there universal moral principles? YES! 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) and 2- Principle of justice (Treat equals equally).

Section 5.2.

1. Difference between consequentialist theories and formalist theories. Consequentialism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. Formalism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of the action's form (i.e., "killing is wrong": the formalist believes that moral actions are objective).

2. Intrinsic (value for its own sake; personhood is an essential value: a-reason, b-autonomy, c-sentience, d-freedom) and instrumental values (value for the sake of something else): 
3. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's best interest in the long run = PRUDENCE. Counterarguments: (a) Egoist's motivations (if known, the egoist's intentions seem to betray reversibility principle). (b) Egoism is not a socially or politically cogent theory (i.e., you would not vote for an egoist in office). 

4. Act Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered (which means, "bringing happiness for the greatest majority of people"). Counterarguments: (a) McCloskey’s informant (b) Brandt’s Heir, (c) Ross' unhappy promise, (d) Goodwin's Fire Rescue, (e) Ewing's Utilitarian torture. In each one of these cases one has violated principles of justice, duty and equality.
 
5. Rule Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it falls under a rule that if generally followed would maximize happiness everyone considered. RU is a better theory than AU. Why? Because if applied, it can solve the problems posed by the previous counterarguments.

Section 5.3.

1. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone can act on it (which yields universalizability), and you'd have everyone acting on it (which yields reversibility: Golden Rule).
 
2. Perfect duty: A duty that must always be performed no matter what. And imperfect duties. Problem with Kant's first formulation: (a) Hare’s Nazi fanatic (I've commented this as Bin-Laden Syndrome).  How can we solve that?
 
3. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS, NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END.Problems with the second formulation: Problem of exceptions: Some times we have to treat people as means to ends: Broad's Typhoid Man.

Pluralistic Formalism: What makes an action right is that it falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation.

Ross’ Prima Facie Duties. Actual duties: One that must be performed in a particular situation. Prima Facie Duty: A duty that must be performed unless it conflict with a more important duty. You must know hierarchy and each one of these duties as I explained in class: 1- Justice, 2- fidelity and 3- reparation being the first three, because they explain out the remaining ones: beneficence, non-maleficence, gratitude, self-improvement.
5. Pluralistic Formalism improves upon Kantian theory's problem with exceptions. 

Section 5.4


Aristotle's virtue. Aristotle begins by saying that the highest good for humans, the highest aim of all human practical thinking, is eudaimonia. What makes a virtuous character (ethikē aretē) possible, which is in turn necessary if happiness is to be possible. He describes a sequence of necessary steps: righteous actions (under the influence of teachers) allow the development of the right habits, which in turn can allow the development of a good character in which the habits are voluntary, and this in turn gives a chance of achieving eudaimonia. 


Virtue is an admirable human quality, marked by a disposition to behave in certain ways in certain circumstances. Then, there is the mean between excess and defect. Here are some examples:

cowardice----courage----rashness

apathy----gentleness----short temper

stinginess----generosity----extravagance

grouchiness----friendliness----flattery

boorishness----wittiness----buffoonery

self-deprecation----truthfulness----boastfulness

insensibility----self-control----debauchery

Virtue ethics is centered around what makes a good person rather than what makes an action right. So the purpose of morality for Aristotle is to make it possible for everyone to enjoy a good life by restricting certain forms of self-interested behavior. And the best way to get people to abide by a system of moral rules is to instill in them certain dispositions known as virtues.
______________________
Here is the link for your textbook, "Doing Philosophy."

Why Politicians Get Away With Lying?

A very interesting article for discussion in the NYTimes: 

First definitions. What's a lie? 

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies

v.intr.

1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

For Lynn Vavreck, politics is a high-stakes game. She writes:

... in the 2000 Democratic nominating contest, when Al Gore claimed he “took the initiative in creating the Internet” was he lying? Or did his comment seem more like a lie after it was misreported that he said he “invented” the Internet? Or how about this case: was it a lie in January of 1998 when President Clinton forcefully denied he had “sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” adding that he “never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never”? And in 2003, when Colin Powell reported to the United Nations that U.S. intelligence showed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was he lying?

See that these examples are different: The first is a public appearance, Gore was being hyperbolic. The second is a more serious instance: lying under oath. In the third example, Powell (then secretary of state under G. W. Bush) was deceived by the C.I.A. Vavreck makes an interesting point:

 Why do Americans tolerate politicians who lie? Because most political lies are exaggerations or contextual lies. They are lies of omission, or put the way a politician might, they are economies of truth.

 For Sisela Bok, lying has become a norm of politics. Bok makes a good point. If your opponent lies and gets away with it, there is little you can do but to lie as well. And the public? This is why people accept that politicians are liars.

But most of the time, the truth is hard to discern amid the barrage of accusations and counter-accusations about fraud, the broken promises, and the outright lies that fly fast and loose among campaigns. The worst outcome would be for everyone to give up -- for voters to conclude that all politicians lie and for politicians to lie when they think that they will get away with doing so, hoping that enough people will be misled and that others won’t hold it against them.

How about evading instead of "lying"?

More disturbingly, politicians who dodged the question but did so in a smooth, practiced fashion were rated more favorably than those who answered the question but in a less fluid fashion: politicians are better off answering the wrong question well than the right question poorly. (Not all dodges go unnoticed – politicians who answered a question about the war on terrorism by riffing on health care were both caught, and punished.)

 George Lakoff is a linguist. For him, it's a two way street. Voters align themselves with their politician of choice and believe what they say because they believe those things. See it as candidate "X" lying to its base (but for them is not a lie). 

What do you think. Should we accept the fact that politics is this game of partisanship and just turn the other way and let the game go on? Is it just a matter of getting used to it? But a lie is a lie: There were no WMD in Iraq.

Politics can be seen as a theater of different factions pushing their versions of governance. In America this is generally Republican vs. Democrat every four years. But aside from the theater, this is a very serious issue. These versions end up affecting our daily lives and our future. Shouldn't we have a commitment to truth? 


I am closing this post next Friday at 11pm.

what's the higgs boson?

god spoke through CERN: here's the higgs boson

as we've been discussing in class, the most important news go under the carpet, few people paying attention to them. we live too preoccupied with our daily noises. this is great news!

Confirmation of the Higgs boson or something very much like it would constitute a rendezvous with destiny for a generation of physicists who have believed in the boson for half a century without ever seeing it. The finding affirms a grand view of a universe described by simple and elegant and symmetrical laws — but one in which everything interesting, like ourselves, results from flaws or breaks in that symmetry. According to the Standard Model, the Higgs boson is the only manifestation of an invisible force field, a cosmic molasses that permeates space and imbues elementary particles with mass. Particles wading through the field gain heft the way a bill going through Congress attracts riders and amendments, becoming ever more ponderous.Without the Higgs field, as it is known, or something like it, all elementary forms of matter would zoom around at the speed of light, flowing through our hands like moonlight. There would be neither atoms nor life.

of course, as with crucial discoveries, this is just the beginning. now comes the process of understanding and recalibrating theories with empirical results.

friends in philosophy

what are you waiting to become a friend of miami bourbaki?

Why is our education so bad??

We've been discussing in class the lack of interest in science amongst minorities. Now in the New York Times: Why only one or two High School students out of every 100 in the US display the level of science mastery that the department defines as advanced?

Are you a transhumanist?

Once more the issue of trans-humanism, but now there is a more pressing topic: according to bio-ethicist Kyle Munkittrick:

Many of us have one or two political issues surrounding our bodies that get us fired up. Many of you reading this right now probably have some hot-button issue on your mind. Maybe it’s abortion, or recreational drug usage, or marriage rights, or surrogate pregnancy, or assisted suicide, or sex work, or voluntary amputation, or gender reassignment surgery.

For each of these issues, there are four words that define our belief about our rights, “My body, my choice.” How you react to those words determine which side of any of those debates you are on. Munkittrick enumerates 3 principles:

1. “My body, my choice” means that if what you do only affects your body, you should have the right to do it. Period, full stop.
   That includes allowing someone to do something to your body. So:
2. If you want to have something done to your body (e.g. surgery to modify your body or to allow a person to pay you to do something with your body), then you should have the right to do that.
3. If you don’t want something to happen to your body (e.g. for your body to become pregnant or for it to be kept working at all costs (both in terms of money and dignity), then you should have that right as well.

Let's problematize a bit: 1-3 clashes with many tenets of institutional religion. Then, some will object on the grounds of the peril of changing human biology in the face of incomplete knowledge. In other words, we have anthropocentrism at odds with biocentrism. In other words, a bit of caution can help here. Thomas Henry Huxley noted in 1888 in The Struggle for Existence in Human Society:

It is an error to imagine that evolution signifies a constant tendency to increased perfection. That process undoubtedly involves a constant remodeling of the organism in adaptation to new conditions; but it depends on the nature of those conditions whether the directions of the modifications effected shall be upward or downward.

Is transhumanism aware of this sort of unpredictability of nature?*
  
Munkkitrick calls his allies: Transhumanists, liberal bioethicists, feminists, marriage rights proponents, sex worker advocates, drug abolitionists, libertarians, and the LGBT community. All fighting for what he calls "our somatic rights."

What are your thoughts?

I'll close this post this saturday at 11pm.
______________
* Nassim Taleb calls it "black swan".  ** For more information take a look at this site on emerging technologies.

Here's Watson!

IBM's Watson has beaten two Jeopardy! champions in a three-night marathon. The computer was awarded a $1 million prize, but the BBC reports that “the victory for Watson and IBM was about more than money. It was about ushering in a new era in computing where machines will increasingly be able to learn and understand what humans are really asking them for. Jeopardy is seen as a significant challenge for Watson because of the show’s rapid-fire format and clues that rely on subtle meanings, puns, and riddles; something humans excel at and computers do not.” With his final answer, Ken Jennings, one of the human competitors and the winner of 74 consecutive Jeopardy! shows (a record), wrote, “I for one welcome our new computer overlords.”

What is it like to be a bat?

An interesting account of Nagel's famous 1974 paper.

Is mind-reading (thus empathy) a female thing?

Mind reading is one aspect of empathy, a skill that shows significant sex differences in favor of females. They tested 16 young women from the general population, since women on average have lower levels of testosterone than men. The decision to test just females was to maximize the possibility of seeing a reduction in their levels of empathy.

Published as research here.

The new study has several important implications. First, that current levels of testosterone directly affect the ability to read someone else's mind. This may help explain why on average women perform better on such tests than men, since men on average produce more testosterone than women.

Summer A (MWF 8am) Topics for Final Exam

Chapter 5


Section 5.1
1. Subjective Absolutism: The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it; Objections: (a) SA makes moral evaluations a matter of personal opinion, (b)impossibility of moral disagreements (one can only agree with the absolutist and the reason is that he believes he's the ONLY ONE THAT'S RIGHT). 

 2. Subjective Relativism: What makes an action right is that it is approved by that person. Objections (same as above). You must be able to tell the difference between the (the absolutist thinks she's the only one that's right, whereas the subjective relativist believes that many people can disagree and still be right at the same time) absolutist and the subjective relativist.

3. Emotivism: The doctrine that moral utterances are expressions of emotions. Basically, the emotivist is saying that right and wrong ARE NOT REALLY OUT THERE!
Counterargument: Blanshard’s Rabbit. What matters is not one's suffering but the victim's suffering (factual force of the victim's suffering).

4. Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture. Counterarguments: (a) Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and (b) differences between deep values (moral values, i.e., human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare) and superficial values (domestic habits, etiquette, fashion, etc) other cultural values to the effect that most cultures seem to share the same deep moral values.

5. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: Moral standards + factual beliefs = Moral judgments (this is not a formula, just an approximation). What is a factual belief? A belief held by factual evidence (i.e., child abuse is wrong because of the facts we know about psychology, human rights, child development, etc,).

6. Are there universal moral principles? YES! 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) and 2- Principle of justice (Treat equals equally).


Section 5.2.
1. Difference between consequentialist theories and formalist theories. Consequentialism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. Formalism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of the action's form (i.e., "killing is wrong": the formalist believes that moral actions are objective).

2. Intrinsic (value for its own sake; personhood is an essential value: a-reason, b-autonomy, c-sentience, d-freedom) and instrumental values (value for the sake of something else):
 
3. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's best interest in the long run = PRUDENCE. Counterarguments: (a) Egoist's motivations (if known, the egoist's intentions seem to betray reversibility principle). (b) Egoism is not a socially or politically cogent theory (i.e., you would not vote for an egoist in office).
 
4. Act Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered (which means, "bringing happiness for the greatest majority of people"). Counterarguments: (a) Mc Closkey’s informant (b) Brandt’s Heir, (c) Ross' unhappy promise, (d) Goodwin's Fire Rescue. In each one of these cases one has violated principles of justice, duty and equality.
 
5. Rule Utilitarianism: What makes an action right is that it falls under a rule that if generally followed would maximize happiness everyone considered. RU is a better theory than AU. Why? Because if applied, it can solve the problems posed by the previous counterarguments.


Section 5.3.
1. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone can act on it (which yields universalizability), and you'd have everyone acting on it (which yields reversibility: Golden Rule).
 
2. Perfect duty: A duty that must always be performed no matter what. And imperfect duties.
Problems with Kant's first formulation: (a) Hare’s Nazi fanatic (Triff's The Bin-Laden Syndrome).
How do you solve that?
 
3. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS AND NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END.
Problems with the second formulation: Problem of exceptions: Some times we have to treat people as means to ends: Broad's Typhoid Man.
Pluralistic Formalism: What makes an action right is that it falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation.

4. Ross’ Prima Facie Duties. Actual duties: One that must be performed in a particular situation. Prima Facie Duty: A duty that must be performed unless it conflict with a more important duty. You must know hierarchy and each one of these duties as I explained in class: 1- Justice, 2- fidelity and 3- reparation being the first three, because they explain out the remaining ones: beneficence, non-maleficence, gratitude, self-improvement.
5. Why is Pluralistic Formalism better than Kantian theory? Because it allows for exceptions.

Black, Latino Students Perform at Levels of 30 Years Ago

In class I've stressed the importance of math and reading (and philosophy really, which sort of represents both). Now, this news from the Huffington Post:

Despite the hope that improving education for children of color would propel them to better life outcomes, Latino and African-American students are not being prepared in high school classrooms for brighter futures. While achievement levels have improved considerably for minority elementary and middle school students, educators say their academic performance drops during high school years. How prevalent is the achievement gap at the high school level? On average, African-American and Latino high school seniors perform math and read at the same level as 13-year-old white students.

Then there is this Department of Education chart stating the obvious.  

 Blacks drop out of school at twice the rate of whites and trail in double digits behind whites and Asians on the School Performance Assessment Program, a series of tests administered to students in third, fifth and eighth grades. Gaps persist on the Scholastic Assessment Test as well. Black males, for instance, trail whites more than 126 points on the mathematics part and by 104 points on the verbal portion of the exam given to college-bound students.

Let's keep in mind this study by Datnow & Cooper (1996):

Many African-American students enter school environments with less academic preparation than their majority counterparts. This lack of preparation often stems from the limited resources and lower expectations that characterize the schools they previously attended. This is contrary to the conclusion drawn by some of their classmates, who believe that African-American students's poor preparation stems from their limited intellectual capabilities. This misperception contributes to the difficulties faced by some African-American students in independent schools. On the one hand, they acknowledge a gap in their knowledge base and, in some cases, work twice as hard to compensate for that gap. On the other hand, for certain students, the gap is so wide in their knowledge base that although they work twice as hard as their fellow classmates, it takes several years before their hard work becomes evident in their academic performance.

What is the cause for this problematic gap? Deficient teaching? Family disintegration? Scholastic values? Social anomie?  Wrong values? Veiled (or perceived) discrimination? 

What can we do to change this situation?

Let's get to work!

This post closes next Monday at 11pm

A River of Waste

Following our discussion on animal farm. This documentary, A River of Waste exposes a huge health and environmental scandal in our modern industrial system of meat and poultry production. Some scientists have gone so far as to call the condemned current factory farm practices as "mini Chernobyls." In the U.S. and elsewhere, the meat and poultry industry is dominated by dangerous uses of arsenic, antibiotics, growth hormones and by the dumping of massive amounts of sewage in fragile waterways and environments. The film documents the vast catastrophic impact on the environment and public health as well as focuses on the individual lives damaged and destroyed. Don't miss it. Recommend it to your friends.

What is life?

A magnified virus

Regarding our discussion in class of what is a necessary condition for life. There is this, which connects with our discussion of the evolution of science:

First seen as poisons, then as life-forms, then biological chemicals, viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonliving: they cannot replicate on their own but can do so in truly living cells and can also affect the behavior of their hosts profoundly. The categorization of viruses as nonliving during much of the modern era of biological science has had an unintended consequence: it has led most researchers to ignore viruses in the study of evolution.

We have to also take into account other causal possibilities, for example, you would think that water is a necessary condition for life. According to astrobiologist  Benton Clark not so:

Life on Earth evolved with water, and so today life on Earth is dependent on that resource. But we cannot say that without water, life is impossible. On Earth, life has been able to adapt to the harshest environments, so it is possible that life may have found a way to survive on worlds that have no liquid water.

According to Clark, living organisms exhibit at least 102 observable qualities. Adding all these qualities together into a single - if exceedingly long - definition still does not capture the essence of life.


For the sake of problematizing, take a look at proposed conditions:

1. A network of inferior negative feedbacks (regulatory mechanisms) subordinated to a superior positive feedback (potential of expansion, reproduction).
2.  A systemic definition of life is that living things are self-organizing and autopoietic (self-producing). Variations of this definition include Stuart Kauffman's definition as an autonomous agent or a multi-agent system capable of reproducing itself or themselves, and of completing at least one thermodynamic work cycle.
3. Living beings are thermodynamic systems that have an organized molecular structure.
3(a). Things with the capacity for metabolism and motion.
4. Life is a delay of the spontaneous diffusion or dispersion of the internal energy of the biomolecules towards more potential microstates.
5. Life is a way to "hydrogenate carbon dioxide," at least at its very beginnings, according to physicist Sean Carroll.
6. Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.
7. Life is matter that can reproduce itself and evolve as survival dictates.
8. Life is self-reproduction "with variations."
9. Life is self-reproduction "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."

Adieu? no, hasta pronto

My dear friends. It has been such a pleasure to have you in my class. We've learned so much together.  Now, don't be strangers.  If you want to be on the triffian side of things, join Miami Bourbaki. See you there!

Phi 2010 Eastern Philosophy coming to a campus near you this summer

Should "ahimsa" rule the world?
Can "nothingness" exist?
Is evil "good?"
Can God be "in the excrement"?
Why "miracle" is just a metaphor for the containment of power.
Does "reincarnation" mean to change one's personality?
Did the Chinese invent pragmatism?
How "koan" can change your life -and your idea of poetry.
What's a mindless mind?
Losing is not always losing; winning not always winning.
Can "bravery" consist in dying?
To destroy is to transform (careful! only for gods!).
______________

In case you're interested, I'll be teaching PHI 2070 for Summer A, 2012.

Final paper (guidelines)

Our final paper is simple. 1,000 words, double spaced, spelled-checked, word-processed.

Topic: "My personal struggle with philosophy."

Suggested narrative: I'd like you to explore your personal interaction with philosophy throughout the semester. This paper can be done in the form of a personal narrative. Let me suggest a few ideas, you may follow them or expand on them: 1- what has been the most difficult or interesting topics, 2- describe your personal reaction to various themes, 3- try to articulate your own discoveries, if any, 3- what have you learned? 4- are there topics you think you may need to look on your own? 5- now that you have a general idea of philosophy, what do you think of the discipline? 6- what's your experience during this learning process? 7- do you feel a change in your outlook of the problems we've studied?

If you have any questions, post them here. 

This paper is due on our final exam date.    

T,R 8:25am

T,R 9:50am

T, 5:40pm

What Isn't for Sale? (post for comment)

A  great article by philosopher Michael Sandel.

I'd like to present a debate between Sandel and two of his readers. Edward Stevenson takes a different position:

Argument completely without foundation. The author confuses market/price transparency with market existence. much of what is referenced is not an expansion of a market, but either 1) increased awareness of the prices due to better communication of obscure transactions (cost of immigration), 2) or increased liquidity of existing transactions (we used to give kids candy for reading a book, then fake bucks, now they get dollars). There is not need for a public debate. if a market exists it means that two people somewhere agree that a market should exist and thus it does. to limit the existence of markets is to limit the existence of human interaction plane and simple. two people sitting in a coffee shop exchanging ideas is a market transaction both agree that the ideas being expressed and listened to are worth the value of their time, cumulative costs (the parking meter, and the coffee etc), and the opportunity cost. Thus even me reading and commenting on this article is a form of a market transaction, one that I am glad can exist without the gaze of scrutiny but those involved in a public debate of the proneness and morality of my discretion of time and worthiness of my comments.

 A Sue Bond has it in a different way:

 I disagree that there is such a stark dichotomy: markets or government. And I disagree that the markets are more about freedom than money. A poor woman 'choosing' to sell her ova or rent out her uterus so her family can have somewhere to live or her children get an education is not a 'choice'. Rich women don't make these 'choices', because they don't have to. Poor people may feel compelled to sell their kidneys to give their families things that we take for granted. This is not freedom, this is making excuses for not doing anything about social inequality and for not caring about others.

So, here you have it, pro and con, what's your view? Do you agree with Sandel that, 

Some say the moral failing at the heart of market triumphalism was greed, which led to irresponsible risk-taking. The solution, according to this view, is to rein in greed, insist on greater integrity and responsibility among bankers and Wall Street executives, and enact sensible regulations to prevent a similar crisis from happening again.This is, at best, a partial diagnosis. While it is certainly true that greed played a role in the financial crisis, something bigger was and is at stake. The most fateful change that unfolded during the past three decades was not an increase in greed. It was the reach of markets, and of market values, into spheres of life traditionally governed by nonmarket norms. To contend with this condition, we need to do more than inveigh against greed; we need to have a public debate about where markets belong—and where they don’t.

 Go ahead!

I am closing this post this Sunday at 11pm. 

What is personal identity?

Check these videos with  Professor Shelly Kagan, at Yale University:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Q-memory helps the idea of a memory, in the strong sense, as too interconnected with the notion of selfhood to be of any constitutional value in terms of personal identity. If we can theoretically strip memory of this reliance on a specific self then we would avoid the inherently circular relationship between memory and personal identity. If this can be achieved then there is the possibility that we could get away with using this weaker version of memory as the sole criterion for personal identity. In order to do this Shoemaker tries to make a distinction between two different types of memory

Quasi-Memory, would seem to be void of any reference to a specific self. The reason why this is so is because by weakening the previous awareness condition Shoemaker strips memory of its ability to be immune from error through mis-identification in relation to the first person. Because of the fact that the memory can only belong to someone or other it cannot be said with certainty that the person who has the quasi-memory was aware of the event contained in the quasi-memory at the time of it’s occurrence, and thus we may well be mistaken in saying that the holder of the quasi-memory is the person who had the original quasi-memory in the first instance.