“Tell me," Wittgenstein once asked a friend, "why do people always say, it was natural for man to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?" His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth." Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?” What would it have looked like if we looked at all (...) sciences from the viewpoint of Wittgenstein’s philosophy? Wittgenstein is undoubtedly one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. His complex body of work has been analysed by numerous scholars, from mathematicians and physicists, to philosophers, linguists, and beyond. This volume brings together some of his central perspectives as applied to the modern sciences and studies the influence they may have on the thought processes underlying science and on the world view it engenders. The contributions stem from leading scholars in philosophy, mathematics, physics, economics, psychology and human sciences; all of them have written in an accessible style that demands little specialist knowledge, whilst clearly portraying and discussing the deep issues at hand. (shrink)

Autonomous and automatic weapons would be fire and forget: you activate them, and they decide who, when and how to kill; or they kill at a later time a target you’ve selected earlier. Some argue that this sort of killing is always wrong. If killing is to be done, it should be done only under direct human control. (E.g., Mary Ellen O’Connell, Peter Asaro, Christof Heyns.) I argue that there are surprisingly many kinds of situation where this is false and (...) where the use of Automated Weapons Systems would in fact be morally required. These include cases where a) once one has activated a weapon expected then to behave lethally, it would be appropriate to let it continue because this is part of a plan whose goodness one was best positioned to evaluate before activating the weapon; b) one expects better long-term consequences from allowing it to continue; c) allowing it to continue would express a decision you made to be resolute, a decision that could not have advantaged you had it not been true that you would carry through with it; d) the weapon is mechanically not recallable, so that, to not allow it to carry through, you would have had to refrain from activating it in the first place, something you expected would have disastrous consequences; e) you must deputize necessary killings to autonomous machines in order to protect yourself from guilt you shouldn’t have to bear; f) it would be morally better for the burden of responsibility for the killing to be shared among several agents, and the agents deputizing killing to machines can do this, especially where it’s not predictable which machine will be successful; g) a killing would be morally better done with elements of randomness and lack of deliberation, and a (relatively stupid) machine could do this where a person could not; h) the machine would be acting as a Doomsday Device, so that it could not have had its hoped for deterrent effect had you not ensured that you would be unable to recall it if enemy action activated it; i) letting it carry through is a necessary part of its own learning process, and you expect that this learning will have salutary effects later on; j) human intervention in the machine’s operation would disastrously impair its precision, or its speed and efficiency; k) using non-automated methods would require human resources you just don’t have in a task that nevertheless must be done (e.g., using land-mines to protect remote installations); l) the weapon has such horrible and indiscriminate power that it is doubtful whether it could be actually used in ways compatible with International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of War, which require that weapons be used only in ways respecting distinctness, necessity and proportionality, but its threat of use could respect these principles in affording deterrence provided human error cannot lead to their accidental deployment, this requiring that they be controlled by carefully designed autonomous and automatic systems. I then consider objections based on conceptions of human dignity and find that very often dignity too is best served by autonomous machine killing. Examples include saving your village by activating a robot to kill invading enemies who would inflict great indignity on your village, using a suicide robot to save yourself from a less dignified death at enemy hands, using a robotic drone to kill someone otherwise not accessible in order to restore dignity to someone this person killed and to his family, and using a robot to kill someone who needs killing, but the killing of whom by a human executioner would soil the executioner’s dignity. I conclude that what matters in rightful killing isn’t necessarily that it be under the direct control of a human, but that it be under the control of morality; and that could sometimes require use of an autonomous or automated device. (This paper was formerly called "Fire and Forget: A Defense of the Use of Autonomous Weapons in War" on Philpapers; the current title is the title of the published version.). (shrink)

Professor Knox’s translation is, as one would expect, excellent. Even so, understanding this text will present difficulties to anyone who is anything less than expert not only in the philosophy of Hegel, but in those of Kant, Fichte and, especially, Schelling, because Hegel’s philosophy in 1802–3 was still by no means fully-fledged. The result is that the usual difficulties of Hegelian terminology are compounded by the infusion of the terminology and philosophical programme of Schelling; one’s tendency to interpret the text (...) in the light of Hegel’s mature philosophy has to be tempered by the realization that what prima facie looks ‘Hegelian’ is not necessarily so. This makes the initial agonies of a Hegel text even more hellish than usual, and no translator’s notes, no Introduction, however good, can spare one these pains when one starts reading. Perhaps the translator might have been a bit more generous with bracketed or footnoted explanations, for example, of words like ‘divine’, ‘difference’, ‘indifference’, and even more usefully of words that do not look odd in the context, like ‘immediately’ or ‘science’. On the other hand, since in reading a Hegel text for the first time it is usually best to push on regardless, it may be a help not to have too much in the way of explanation of technicalities to hold one up. (shrink)

Reviewed Works:G. Priest, R. Routley, Graham Priest, Richard Routley, Jean Norman, First Historical Introduction. A Preliminary History of Paraconsistent and Dialethic Approaches.Ayda I. Arruda, Aspects of the Historical Development of Paraconsistent Logic.G. Priest, R. Routley, Systems of Paraconsistent Logic.G. Priest, R. Routley, Applications of Paraconsistent Logic.G. Priest, R. Routley, The Philosophical Significance and Inevitability of Paraconsistency.

Initially, we perceive an indefinite extension imprecisely, a spread C ; this perception can be visual, aural, or tactile.

This book introduces a new category, in-between, that will have a far-reaching impact on classic ways of thinking. Husserl's description of consciousness and Whitehead's criticism of the prejudice of simple location are two starting points. Relativity theory's radical changes in the conception of space and time also motivate some of the lines of thought.

This book introduces a new category, in-between, that will have a far-reaching impact on classic ways of thinking. Husserl's description of consciousness and Whitehead's criticism of the prejudice of simple location are two starting points. Relativity theory's radical changes in the conception of space and time also motivate some of the lines of thought.

Um certo número de trabalhos foi dedicado à viabilidade e interesse da matemática inconsistente, mas até hoje poucos esforços comparáveis foram feitos no que diz respeito à física. Alguns poucos tópicos de física são aqui descritos no qual a presença de contradições é indisputável e clama por um tratamento lógico diferenciado. O argumento baseia-se em dois fatos. Primeiro, antinomias não são necessariamente geradas por negação: a conjunção de dois enunciados opostos pode igualmente gerar uma antinomia. Segundo, essa antinomicidade por oposição (...) desce ao nível dos conceitos — termos e relações — que se tornam antinômicos quando ligados a seus opostos. Cada categoria básica do pensamento, por exemplo, é impensável e sem significado se não tomada em conjunção com sua categoria oposta. Todas elas são necessariamente antinômicas. Aqui, indeterminismo, não localidade e vazio, em particular, são apresentados como conceitos físicos eminentemente antinômicos. DOI: 10.5007/1808-1711.2011v15n1p43. (shrink)

Transplantation of vital organs has been premised ethically and legally on "the dead donor rule" (DDR)—the requirement that donors are determined to be dead before these organs are procured. Nevertheless, scholars have argued cogently that donors of vital organs, including those diagnosed as "brain dead" and those declared dead according to cardiopulmonary criteria, are not in fact dead at the time that vital organs are being procured. In this article, we challenge the normative rationale for the DDR by rejecting the (...) underlying premise that it is necessarily wrong for physicians to cause the death of patients and the claim that abandoning this rule would exploit vulnerable patients. We contend that it is ethical to procure vital organs from living patients sustained on life support prior to treatment withdrawal, provided that there is valid consent for both withdrawing treatment and organ donation. However, the conservatism of medical ethics and practical concerns make it doubtful that the DDR will be abandoned in the near future. This leaves the current practice of organ transplantation based on the "moral fiction" that donors are dead when vital organs are procured. (shrink)

Risk–benefit assessment is a routine requirement for research ethics committees that review and oversee biomedical research with human subjects. Nevertheless, it remains unclear how to weigh and balance risks to research participants against the social benefits that flow from generating biomedical knowledge. In this article, we address the question of whether there are any reasonable criteria for defining the limit of permissible risks to individuals who provide informed consent for research participation. We argue against any a priori limit to permissible (...) research risks. However, attention to the uncertainty of potential social benefit that can be derived from any particular study warrants caution in exposing prospective research participants to a substantial likelihood of serious harm. (shrink)

Despite strong growth in scientific investigation of the placebo effect, understanding of this phenomenon remains deeply confused. We investigate critically seven common conceptual distinctions that impede clear understanding of the placebo effect: (1) verum/placebo, (2) active/inactive, (3) signal/noise, (4) specific/nonspecific, (5) objective/subjective, (6) disease/illness, and (7) intervention/context. We argue that some of these should be eliminated entirely, whereas others must be used with caution to avoid bias. Clearing away the conceptual underbrush is needed to lay down a path to understanding (...) and harnessing placebo effects in clinical medicine. (shrink)

Although established in the law and current practice, the determination of death according to neurological criteria continues to be controversial. Some scholars have advocated return to the traditional circulatory and respiratory criteria for determining death because individuals diagnosed as ‘brain dead’ display an extensive range of integrated biological functioning with the aid of mechanical ventilation. Others have attempted to refute this stance by appealing to the analogy between decapitation and brain death. Since a decapitated animal is obviously dead, and ‘brain (...) death’ represents physiological decapitation, brain dead individuals must be dead. In this article we refute this ‘decapitation gambit.’ We argue that decapitated animals are not necessarily dead, and that, moreover, the analogy between decapitation and the clinical syndrome of brain death is flawed. (shrink)

Der Beschreibung der zeitlichen Entwicklung lebender Systeme kann eine reine Differentialanalyse nicht genügen. In solchen Fällen muss man sich an Stelle der gewöhnlichen Differentialgleichungen der integraldifferentiellen, bezw. der Integralgleichungen bedienen. Zur leichteren Veranschaulichung der mathematischen Darstellung betrachtet Verfasser zuerst diejenigen Systeme, deren innerer Zustand sich durch ein einziges Parameterc bestimmen lässt. Die zeitliche Entwicklung eines leblosen Systems dieser Klasse werde durch die Differentialgleichung $$\frac{{dc}}{{dt}} = kf...$$ dargestellt, wot=Zeit, undk eine Funktion der äusseren Parameterα, Β, γ. ist. Im Falle eines jeden (...) Systems sind die äusseren Parameterα, Β, γ. charakteristische individuelle Funktionen der Zeit. Misst manc am. Zeitpunktt, so lässt sich die Zukunft des Systems vermittelst der Gleichung berechnen, wenn die zukünftigen Werte der äusseren Parameter gegeben sind. Solche Systeme nennt Verfasser nicht-historische Systeme. Im Falle der lebenden Systeme werde die zeitliche Entwicklung durch die Integral-differentialgleichung $$\frac{{dc}}{{dt}} = k_1 f_1 + \mathop \smallint \limits_{t - \lambda }^t k_2 f_2 dt........$$ dargestellt, wof 1 undf 2 Funktionen des Zustandsparametersc, undk 1 undk 2 Funktionen der äusseren Parameter sind. Das Zeitintegral erstreckt sich auf das vergangene Zeitintervalt-λ →t, woλ einen positiven endlichen konstanten Wert besitzt. Diese Systeme nennt Verfasser historische Systeme. Setzt manH für das darin enthaltene Integralglied, so verwandelt sich die Gleichung in: $$\frac{{dc}}{{dt}} = k_1 f_1 + H..........$$ Misst man nunc am Zeitpunktt, so kann man in diesem Fall die Zukunft des Systems ohne Kenntnis des historischen GliedsH nicht berechnen. Das Vorkommen des historischen IntegralgliedsH nennt Verfasser Chronoholismus. Man kann deshalb die historischen Systeme auch chronoholistische Systeme nennen. Die biologische Interpretation dieser Betrachtungsweise wird vom Verfasser diskutiert, und die Gleichung auf Systeme mit erblichen Eigenschaften ausgedehnt. Es werden zuletzt Systeme mit vielen Zustandsparametern in gewissen einfachen Fällen kurz behandelt. L'analyse différentielle ne suffit pas, selon l'avis de de l'auteur, pour la description de l'évolution des systèmes vivants au cours des temps. Il faut utiliser dans ces cas les équations intégro-différentielles ou intégrales. Pour faciliter le traÎtement mathématique, on peut considérer d'abord les systèmes dont l'état intérieur est défini par un seul paramètrec. L'évolution d'un système inanimé de cette classe se laisse décrire par l'équation différentielle $$\frac{{dc}}{{dt}} = k f,...........$$ oùt=temps, etk est une fonction déterminée des paramètres extérieurs α,Β, γ. Si l'on connaÎtc à un temps donnét, l'état du système à un temps futurt′ se laisse prévoir au moyen de l'équation, quand les valeurs des paramètres extérieurs dans l'intervallet → t∼' sont fixées. L'auteur appelle les systèmes de cette classe des systèmes non-historiques. Pour les systèmes vivants, il faut se servir, selon l'avis de l'auteur, des équations intégro-différentielles. Pour les systèmes définis par un seul paramètrec, on peut se servir, par exemple, de l'équation $$\frac{{dc}}{{dt}} = k_1 f_1 + \mathop \smallint \limits_{t - \lambda }^t k_2 f_2 dt........$$ où k1 et k2 sont des fonctions déterminées des paramètres extérieurs. L'intégrale s'étend sur l'intervallet-λ→ t où λ est positif et constant. En indiquant le terme intégral par le symboleH, on peut écrire $$\frac{{dc}}{{dt}} = k_1 f_1 + H..........$$ La connaissance de c à un temps donnét ne laisse pas prévoir l'état du système à un temps futurt′ sans connaissance du terme historiqueH, quand mÊme les paramètres α, Β, γ,..., seraient des fonctions déterminées du temps dans l'intervallet→t′. L'auteur appelle l'existence du terme intégral historiqueH le chronoholisme. On peut appeler les systèmes de cette classe des systèmes historiques ou chronoholistiques. L'interprétation biologique de cette faÇon de traÎter les systèmes vivants est discutée par l'auteur, qui étend l'équation pour le faire représenter aussi les propriétés héréditaires des Êtres vivants. Quelques cas de systèmes dont l'état intérieur est défini par plusieurs paramètres et plusieurs phases sont traités brièvement. (shrink)