All Philosophy


Order

Search forums
Subscribe to this forum      feed for this page

 1 - 20 / 432 
2016-07-20



This thread has been abusively deleted. The Philpapers Team offered me the opportunity to restore it.

"How many threads do you need to restore? Combining multiple posts into one would be a way to get around the limitation on 2 posts, and would also be less work for you. Since they were previously accepted, we'll make sure to accept them if you notify us ahead of time with the subject heading." The PhilPapers Team

]

1 What is the goal of vision, and does it need one?
The problem of the teleological approach is that it assumes that which still is not and cannot be known: clear vision. How can the brain have as goal the elimination of obstacles to clear vision, through, among other, all kinds of ocular movements, if clear vision is itself the result of these movements? As we shall see, many visual phenomena has been approached under this naive perspective, with many complex theories as a result.
If, like I claim, clear vision can never be the goal of the visual system, but only its effect, tha ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/18194 Reply

2016-07-20
It seems to me that this work is very much unavailable to students and professionals. Have not found it online in any form, save for a few hardcover editions for more than $500. Crazy.

2016-07-11

In a recent article “From Sexuality to Eroticism: The Making of the Human Mind” http://www.scirp.org/journal/AA/ I describe a new scenario for human evolution. Besides the well known topics of upright gait and explorative curiosity I dwell on the realm of erotic life. I do this in accordance with Owen Lovejoy’s pair-bonding hypothesis of human origins. In consequence of their upright gait early humans practiced frontal eye-to-eye copulation. In the beginning this was merely random and took place in the horde. But some females may have felt better with a specific male and thus looked for intimate relations with him. Here begins a sort of “emotional selection”, different from mere sexual selection for good genes. Through long-term bonds erotic feelings are intensified and extended onto higher-order emotions such as hope and jealousy. This scenario is confirmed by the fact that the development of the large brain of humans seems to be more in relation to emotional development than to techn ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/17694 Reply

2016-07-08
I have come across a strange discrepancy between the claims of Simon Stevin and Einstein concerning gravitation. Well, the first is a classic thinker of the 16-17th century, while Einstein is a prodigy of the 20th. So, why should it be a problem? But then, this is not my area of expertise and I would like very much to hear from people on the know.I would greatly appreciate comments on the following post:
http://philpapers.org/post/17566


2016-07-07
[

This thread has been abusively deleted. The Philpapers Team offered me the opportunity to restore it.

"How many threads do you need to restore? Combining multiple posts into one would be a way to get around the limitation on 2 posts, and would also be less work for you. Since they were previously accepted, we'll make sure to accept them if you notify us ahead of time with the subject heading." The PhilPapers Team

]

1 Turing and the Myth of Universality

There is a strong, not to say absolute belief in the consistency of Turing's thesis, which can be, informally, expressed as such: what a computer can do, any other computer can.

Let us start with the simplest expression of all:

1) 0+1=1

It will be obvious to anyone that any computer worth its silicone, or any other material substrate, will be able to compute (1).

What does that say about universal computing?

Well, that's just it, really. It does not say anything at all. All it shows is that, once the problem has been solved, or at least, put ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/17546 Reply

2016-07-07
The real materialism states that "all scientific laws are inherent to the matter itself".
It is these laws that, for billions of years (at least 13) determine the causal evolution of the atomOs (atomOs of Democritos&alii), and thus determines the causal evolution of photons, so the agglomerated material, so the causal evolution of living matter and therefore the causal evolution of human society.
So we can say that the laws of biology are inherent in the laws of physics. They are only summaries of these basic laws.
As a result, physics and biology have a common body of scientific laws - they are what we will call "philosophical laws."
These laws obviously add to the laws of knowledge (epistemological laws)
So we will call "materiological laws" these laws that will add to the "epistemological laws" to form the set of "philosophical laws."
The first materiological laws - so a law common to physics and biology - is the law of transformation quantity quality  law.-(LTQQ)
It was discovered by Hegel ... (read more)

2016-07-05
[

This thread has been abusively deleted. The Philpapers Team offered me the opportunity to restore it.

"How many threads do you need to restore? Combining multiple posts into one would be a way to get around the limitation on 2 posts, and would also be less work for you. Since they were previously accepted, we'll make sure to accept them if you notify us ahead of time with the subject heading." The PhilPapers Team

]


1 Hearing

George: I hate ears!
me: You sound just like Hate-Smurf. You did not mind the semi-circular canals, so why hate ears?
George: I don't mind the canals, in fact I love them. They're really fun. Any time you move your head I get to whoosh from one pool to the other!
me: And riding the basilar membrane, that's not fun? That's just like a trampoline, isn't it?
George: Yeah, I guess it is. Or at least it would be, if I could play the drums instead of having them bellowing in my head!
me: I don't understand.
George: Of course you don't. You're not supposed to. It's a h ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/17418 Reply

2016-07-04
Not out of umbrage so much as a deep concern over ideological censorship in philosophy, I want to publicly note and respond to the negative referee reports this paper has received (when graced with a report at all----it was desk rejected multiple times without comment). I believe the comments I quote below, compared with a reading of the paper itself, will reveal that it was rejected for ideological reasons, and that the paper warrants publication and indeed engagement.  
Background: I co-authored this paper with a student, Michael Prideaux, a queer activist who is now studying non-profit management. I disagree with my coauthor on many matters, but we agree on the importance of principles, consistency, and reasoning in ethical debate. Unfortunately, our referee(s) believe in gate-keeping and stifling views they find "troubling." I waited to post a public reply until he was in grad school so as to shield him from controversy.

Below I will quote the only two referee reports I received. I wi ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/17358 Reply

2016-06-22
I have been following the discussion thread here on the topic of qualia. I was also interested in recent reports about observations made by brain scanning on brains affected by LSD (Carhart-Harris 2016) which seem to show that a great many additional areas of the brain are activated as the test subject experiences vivid drug-induced hallucinations. That seems to suggest that it is not in the nature of the data itself to be of a special kind that contains the information stored in a quale, but rather it is due to the procedure that is interpreting the data. That is analogous, perhaps, to a person, accustomed to reading novels, reading a dictionary by mistake and wondering why the plot seemed so confusing. I accept that the information content of an experience must be stored internally in some form. However, rather than being a replication of something which forms the input to our sensory perceptions, it must instead be a replication of some aspect of the output. A replication of the inp ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/16962 Reply

2016-07-06
I have been listening to all these economic warnings against Brexit, but they leave me with a couple of worries. And I don't have the expertise to assess them properly:

(a) The arguments for very negative economic effects from Brexit seem to assume that Brexit will leave the EU perfectly intact. It can then punish us with its economic power! But the assumption is very heavy. At least 4 EU member states fear that Brexit will lead to referendums in their own countries: France, Austria, Netherlands and Denmark.


(b) David Cameron repeatedly tells us that according to 9 out of 10 economists, Brexit would be bad for the UK. But the principle “Just go with the vast majority of economic experts on what the economic consequences are” is questionable. What about the 1 out of 10? Who are they? Today I found a professor at Cardiff Business School, a professor of economics at Durham University, and a professor of pensions at Cass Business School. Also Joseph Stiglitz, one of the greatest li ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/16874 Reply

2016-06-14

I'd love some feedback on my prediction that we can "detect" qualia, simply by qualitatively interpreting correctly what we are observing.  I also describe, or at least predict, why we are currently "qualia blind" when we interpret things the "intuitive" way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/16606 Reply

2016-06-07
Is anyone aware of any philosophical discussions of the following kind of question?
Can you rationally (or justifiably, or without irrationality, or the like) believe that p while also believing that you do not know that p?

Also, what do you think the answer is?
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/16126 Reply

2016-06-06
Without proton and electron nuclei can exist but without nuclei no existence proton and electron.

Without four arms hydrogen ion disc can exist but without hydrogen ion disc no existence of four arms of milky way.

In the universe light and darkness is present.
When white light is passed through a prism.Light split into seven colors.like wise the whole universe is came from white liquid.

Atoms are came from white liquid.

Darkness is empty space

So light is god.

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/16082 Reply

2016-06-04


In a recent article “From Sexuality to Eroticism: The Making of The Human Mind”  http://www.scirp.org/journal/AA/  I have tried to describe and to explain the uniqueness of human consciousness in the light of our unusual erotic experience. Eroticism is difficult to define as it is close to sexuality and at the same time transforming it into spiritual issues. Unfortunately, my Eroticism-hypothesis is often identified with Freud’s pansexual position. Instead, I am aware of the fact that sexual exploits take only a small part in human life-history. Nevertheless I am pleading for a structural or formal analogy between the erotic and the function of human consciousness. Both show a curious ambiguity in the experience of the outer and the inner world, combining reality and appearance. The interference of physical experience and emotional imagination distances the human mind from mere animal awareness---a difference that is not merely gradual but qualitative.

Evolutionary biologists do not like ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/16054 Reply

2016-05-24
In https://arcturantimes.wordpress.com/2016/04/16/consciousness-from-the-bottom-up-speculation-on-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-and-qualia-2-leaning-on-the-premise/, I try out a speculative way through the hard problem of consciousness and dealing with qualia. It's very incomplete and tentative, but I'd appreciate any feedback or criticisms.
Basically, I take Chalmers's idea of consciousness as a fundamental property, but instead of seeing it as a high-level, emergent property arising from complex information processing, I consider that it might be a low-level input into the full, constructed mind. Specifically, I suggest the qualia might be the direct (not mediated) experience of individual, or small groups of, cells.

Of course, this would push the qualia/consciousness mystery down to the cellular level, but at least it could help explain what is happening in the brain at higher levels of organization!
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/15782 Reply

2016-05-13
Could anyone explain the difference between being part and being member (if any)? References to existing literature are welcome. 
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/15450 Reply

2016-04-24
I told this philosophy joke to some friends, and they think I should tell it to philosophers, but I wonder whether it is already known. Just in case not:

How many homunculi does it take to change a lightbulb?
An infinite number, getting smaller and smaller.
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/15030 Reply

 1 - 20 / 432