Online research in philosophy

W.V.O. Quine has famously objected that (1) properties are philosophically suspect because (2) there is no entity without identity and (3) the synonymy criterion for property identity won't do because there's no such concept as synonymy. (2) and (3) may or may not be right but do not prove (1). I reply that Leiniz's Law handles property identity, as it does for everything else, then respond to a variety of objections and confusions.

The paper reviews the arguments for and against a number of criteria for event identity. The proliferation of such criteria in the 1970’s raises the question of how one is to choose between them. Eight adequacy conditions, whose own adequacy has been argued for elsewhere, are determined to be insufticient for deciding among the criteria. Some concluding remarks about the role of the adequacy conditions and the problem of choosing a criterion are offered. Finally, questions about the nature of and role of an identity criterion are raised.

Sortal predicates have been associated with a counting process, which acts as a criterion of identity for the individuals they correctly apply to. We discuss in what sense certain types of predicates suggested by quantum physics deserve the title of 'sortal' as well, although they do not characterize either a process of counting or a criterion of identity for the entities that fall under them. We call such predicates 'quantum-sortal predicates' and, instead of a process of counting, to them is associated a 'criterion of cardinality'. After their general characterization, it is discussed how these predicates can be formally described.

Sortal predicates have been associated with a counting process, which acts as a criterion of identity for the individuals they correctly apply to. We discuss in what sense certain types of predicates suggested by quantum physics deserve the title of ‘sortal’ as well, although they do not characterize either a process of counting or a criterion of identity for the entities that fall under them. We call such predicates ‘quantum-sortal predicates’ and, instead of a process of counting, to them is associated a ‘criterion of cardinality’. After their general characterization, it is discussed how these predicates can be formally described.

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE IDENTITY On the classical, or Fregean, view of identity it is an equivalence relation satisfying Leibniz's Law (so<alled), ...

Coincidentalism is the view that distinct material things can be composed of the same microphysical simples at the same time. The existence of distinct coincidents is incompatible with any microphysical criterion of identity over time of material composites. This incompatibility constitutes a problem for the coincidentalist only if the coincidentalist needs a microphysical criterion of identity over time. What does the coincidentalist need such a criterion for? I will show that the coincidentalist needs such a criterion for an explanation of cardinal supervenience, of the thesis that facts concerning how many composite material things exist supervene on facts about microphysical simples.

The aim of this paper is to derive a perfectly general criterion of identity through time from Locke’s Principle, which says that two things of the same kind cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In this way, the paper pursues a suggestion made by Peter F. Strawson almost thirty years ago in an article called ‘Entity and Identity’. The reason why the potential of this suggestion has so far remained unrealized is twofold: firstly, the suggestion was never properly developed by Strawson, and secondly, it seemed vulnerable to an objection that he himself raised against it. Consequently, the paper’s aim is to further develop Strawson’s suggestion, and to show that the result is not vulnerable to the objection that seemed fatal to its underdeveloped predecessor. In addition, the paper aims to defend Locke’s Principle against alleged counterexamples such as those produced by Leibniz, Fine and Hughes.

This discussion deals with the question: What are the criteria that an adequate theory of computation has to meet? 1. Smith's answer: an adequate theory of computation has to meet the empirical criterion – it has to do justice to computational practice, the conceptual criterion – it has to explain all the underlying concepts and the cognitive criterion – it has to provide solid grounds for computationalism. 2. Fodor & Pylyshyn's answer: an adequate theory of computation has to meet the semantic level criterion – it has to explain the semantics of computation, the symbol level criterion – it has to explain the information processing aspect and the physical level criterion – it has to explain the underlying physical realization. 3. Piccinini's answer: an adequate theory of computation has to meet the objectivity criterion – it has to identify computation as a matter of fact, the explanation criterion – it has to explain the computer's behaviour, the right things compute criterion, the miscomputation criterion – it has to account for malfunctions, the taxonomy criterion – it has to distinguish between different classes of computers and the empirical criterion. 4. Von Neumann's answer: an adequate theory of computation has to meet the precision and reliability of computers criterion, the single error criterion – it has to address the impacts of errors to computation and the distinction between analogue & digital computers criterion. 5. “Everything” computes answer: an adequate theory of computation has to meet the implementation theory criterion – it has to properly explain the notion of implementation. There's a widespread tendency to compare minds to computers, but a better understanding of computation is required beforehand. I outline some of the competing answers and argue that Smith's criteria are inadequate and over demanding. My aim is to show why he's eventually concluded that an adequate theory of computation is unlikely.

In this paper, a general perspective on criteria of identity of kinds of objects is developed. The question of the admissibility of impredicative or circular identity criteria is investigated in the light of the view that is articulated. It is argued that in and of itself impredicativity does not constitute sufficient grounds for rejecting a putative identity criterion. The view that is presented is applied to Davidson's criterion of identity for events and to the structuralist criterion of identity of places in a structure.

One of the main problems of personal identity is supposed to be how we relate to our bodies. A few philosophers endorse what is called a 'bodily criterion of personal identity': they say that we are our bodies, or at any rate that our identity over time consists in the identity of our bodies. Many more deny this--typically on the grounds that we can imagine ourselves coming apart from our bodies. But both sides agree that the bodily criterion is an important view which anyone thinking about personal identity must consider.