Online research in philosophy

Although chimpanzees have been reported to understand to some extent others' visual perception, previous studies using food requesting tasks are divided on whether or not chimpanzees understand the role of eye gaze. One plausible reason for this discrepancy may be the familiarity of the testing situation. Previous food requesting tasks with negative results used an unfamiliar situation that may be difficult for some chimpanzees to recognize as a requesting situation, whereas those with positive results used a familiar situation. The present (...) study tested chimpanzees' understanding of others' attentional states by comparing two requesting situations: an unfamiliar situation in which food was put on a table, and a familiar situation in which chimpanzees requested food held by an experimenter. Chimpanzees showed evidence of understanding the experimenter's attentional variations and the role of eye gaze only in the latter task. This suggests that an unfamiliar requesting situation may keep subjects from expressing their understanding of others' attentional states even though they are sensitive to them. Keywords: Understanding attention; Social cognition; Chimpanzees. (shrink)

On the first of the two occasions I met Thomas Kuhn, we immediately plunged into a ferocious but very friendly argument about incommensurability. He was for it, I was against. Believing in incommensurability was Kuhn’s worst mistake. If it is to be found anywhere in science, it would be in theoretical physics. But revolutions in theoretical physics have one striking feature in common: they all embody theoretical unification. Revolutions associated with Galileo, Newton, Faraday and Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac, (...) class='Hi'>Tomonaga, Schwinger and Feynman, Weinberg and Salam, have all been unifying revolutions. Far from obliterating the idea that there is a persisting theoretical idea in physics, revolutions do just the opposite: they all actually exemplify the persisting idea of underlying unity. Furthermore, persistent acceptance of unifying theories in physics when empirically more successful disunified rivals can always be concocted means that physics makes a persistent implicit assumption concerning unity. To put it in Kuhnian terms, underlying unity is a paradigm for paradigms. Once this is recognized, it becomes clear that we need a new conception of science which represents problematic assumptions concerning the physical comprehensibility and knowability of the universe in the form of a hierarchy, these assumptions becoming less and less substantial and more and more such that their truth is required for science, or the pursuit of knowledge, to be possible at all, as one goes up the hierarchy. This view makes explicit that we can improve assumptions and associated methods – aims and methods – as we proceed with physics, and knowledge improves. There is something like positive feedback between improving knowledge, and improving aims and methods – the nub of scientific rationality, and the methodological key to the great success of science. This hierarchical conception of science has important Kuhnian features, but also differs dramatically from the view Kuhn expounds in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I describe basic features of this hierarchical view, and give reasons why it should be accepted. (shrink)

I shall describe the beautiful fit of the ideas of Alfred North Whitehead and William James with the concepts of relativistic quantum field theory developed by Tomonaga and Schwinger.The central concept is a set of happenings each of which is assigned a space-time region.This growing set of non-overlapping regions fill out a growing space-time region that advances into the still uncreated and yet-to-be-axed future.Each happening has both experiential aspects and physical aspects,which are jointly needed to generate the advance into (...) the future.This conception is useful in passing from the pragmatic interpretation of science to a putative understanding of the reality beyond phenomena,and of our role within it. James' ideas about attention and volition are naturally implementable within this framework,and make us into agents that can act eficaciously upon the physical world on the basis of felt values, rational reasons,and conscious understandings. (shrink)

The problems of the social responsibility of the scientist became a subject of public debate after the World War II in Japan, thanks to the activities and publications of Yukawa and Tomonaga. And such authors as J. Karaki, M.Taketani, Y. Murakami, and S. Fujinaga continued discussion in their books. However, many people seem to be still unaware of the most important source of these problems. As I see it, one of the most important treatments of these problems was the (...) Franck Report (June 11, 1945) submitted to the US government by James Franck (chairman) toward the end of the war. This Report contains many important ideas and suggestions as regards the responsibility of the scientist, the morality of the use of atomic bombs, the prospective nuclear armaments race, and the possibility of international control of nuclear power. However, I should like to concentrate only on the first topic in this paper. Why did Franck and his committee at Metallurgical Laboratory of the University of Chicago feel the urgent need for writing and submitting this Report? According to the Report, "in the past, scientists could disclaim direct responsibility for the use to which mankind had put their disinterested discoveries. We cannot take the same attitude now because the success which we have achieved in the development of nuclear power is fraught with infinitely greater dangers than were all the inventions of the past." (I. Preamble) This passage seems to contain the crux of our problem: These scientists clearly recognize the "new" responsibility for them, and the ground of this responsibility is also clear enough; i.e., when a new scientific discovery or invention turns out to have grave bearings on human interests, the scientists who became aware of that are responsible for notifying people of this and advise to look for suitable means for avoiding prospective dangers. In the rest of the paper, I elaborate the reasoning behind the preceding passage, and confirm that basically the same idea and reasoning has been repeated and developed in Russell-Einstein Manifesto (1955), by Pugwash Conferences (first in 1957), by Tomogana, and by Rotblat (the long-time Secretary of Pugwash, who received the Nobel Peace Prize together with the Conference in 1995). (shrink)

The hidden-variable theorems of Bell and followers depend upon an assumption, namely the hidden-variable assumption, that conflicts with the precepts of quantum philosophy. Hence from an orthodox quantum perspective those theorems entail no faster-than-light transfer of information. They merely reinforce the ban on hidden variables. The need for some sort of faster-than-light information transfer can be shown by using counterfactuals instead of hidden variables. Shimony’s criticism of that argument fails to take into account the distinction between no-faster-than-light connection in one (...) direction and that same condition in both directions. The argument can be cleanly formulated within the framework of a fixed past, open future interpretation of quantum theory, which neatly accommodates the critical assumptions that the experimenters are free to choose which experiments they will perform. The assumptions are compatible with the Tomonaga- Schwinger formulation of quantum field theory, and hence with orthodox quantum precepts, and with the relativistic requirement that no prediction pertaining to an outcome in one region can depend upon a free choice made in a region spacelike-separated from the first. (shrink)

It is often said that the kinetic theory of gases is one of the best examples of the reduction of one theory into another; that is, the classical theory of thermodynamics [or to be more exact, a significant portion of it] is alleged to be reduced to the kinetic theory, which is based on the Newtonian mechanics and the atomistic view of the matter. But what is the nature of this alleged "reduction"? If you want to know the right answer (...) to this, the best way is to examine the historical development of the kinetic theory. The kinetic theory is a theoretical attempt to explain the nature of gases and heat processes, in general, in terms of the movements of numerous molecules constituting a gas. Its major advocates were James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79) and Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906); in the course of their work on the kinetic theory, they had to struggle with several conceptual problems, as well as with many empirical problems, and these conceptual problems have something to do with our question of theory reduction. And you will see that these problems center on the concept of probability. Drawing on Dr. Shin'ichiro Tomonaga's examination, I will argue that their case was not a reduction to, but an extension of, the Newtonian mechanics. (shrink)

The question raised by Shimony and Stein is examined and used to explain in more detail a key point of my proof that any theory that conforms to certain general ideas of orthodox relativistic quantum field theory must permit transfers of information over spacelike intervals. lt is also explained why this result is not a problem for relativistic quantum theory, but, on the contrary, opens the door to a satisfactory realistic relativistic quantum theory based on the ideas of Tomonaga, (...) Schwinger, and von Neumann. (shrink)

This paper discusses how to refine a given initial legal ontology using an existing MRD (Machine-Readable Dictionary). There are two hard issues in the refinement process. One is to find out those MRD concepts most related to given legal concepts. The other is to correct bugs in a given legal ontology, using the concepts extracted from an MRD. In order to resolve the issues, we present a method to find out the best MRD correspondences to given legal concepts, using two (...) match algorithms. Moreover, another method called a static analysis is given to refine a given legal ontology, based on the comparison between the initial legal ontology and the best MRD correspondences to given legal concepts. We have implemented a software environment to help a user refine a given legal ontology based on these methods. The empirical results have shown that the environment works well in the field of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. (shrink)

Fundamental notions Husserl introduced in Ideen I, such as epochè, reality, and empty X as substrate, might be useful for elucidating how mathematical physics concepts are produced. However, this is obscured in the context of Husserl’s phenomenology itself. For this possibility, the author modifies Husserl’s fundamental notions introduced for pure phenomenology, which found all sciences on the absolute Ego. Subsequently, the author displaces Husserl's phenomenological notions toward the notions operating inside scientific activities themselves and shows this using a case study (...) of the construction of noncommutative geometry. The perspective in Ideen I about geometry and mathematical physics includes points that are inappropriate to modern geometry and to modern physics, especially to noncommutative geometry and to quantum physics. The first point relates to the intuitive character of geometrical objects in Husserl. The second is linked to the notion of locality related to the notion of extension, by which Husserl characterizes the essence of physical things. The points show that the notion of empty X as a substrate, developed in “Phenomenology of Reason” in Ideen I, is helpful for considering the notions of physical reality and of geometrical space, especially reality in quantum physics and space in noncommutative geometry. The salient conclusions include the proposition that aphilosophical study of the relationship between the physical object X, which imparts a unity to what is given to sensibility, and the geometrical space X, which imparts a unity of sense to various mathematical operations, opens a reinterpretation of Husserl’s interpretation, supporting an epistemology of mathematical physics. (shrink)

I aim to bring the idea of “degree of free will or freedom” into philosophical debates on free will by rejecting the formulation, ‘we are either free or not’. This idea is based upon my viewpoint of regarding freedom as a realistic phenomena actually occurring. First of all, I focus on the fact that it is vague whether an agent is free or not. This vagueness is interpreted as ontic vagueness, corresponding with the status of freedom as real. However, Evans’s (...) argument regarding ontic vagueness must be considered as, according to his argument, ontic vagueness about identity and objects are impossible. I indicate that this argument assumes the truth-value gap position in borderline cases, hence we can avoid Evans’s argument by adopting truth-value glut position. Of course, the truth-value glut approach has serious difficulties, but I conclude with sketching out a possibility to develop this approach in the free will debate via the introduction of probabilistic valuation. (shrink)