Amongst philosophers, there is ongoing debate about what successful event remembering requires. Causal theorists argue that it requires a causal connection to the past event. Simulation theorists argue, in contrast, that successful remembering requires only production by a reliable memory system. Both views must contend with the fact that people can remember past events they have experienced with varying degrees of accuracy. The debate between them thus concerns not only the account of successful remembering, but how each account explains the (...) various forms of memory error as well. Advancing the debate therefore must include exploration of the cognitive architecture implicated by each view and whether that architecture is capable of producing the range of event representations seen in human remembering. Our paper begins by exploring these architectures, framing casual theories as best suited to the storage of event instances and simulation theories as best suited to store schemas. While each approach has its advantages, neither can account for the full range of our event remembering abilities. We then propose a novel hybrid theory that combines both instance and schematic elements in the event memory. In addition, we provide an implementation of our theory in the context of a cognitive architecture. We also discuss an agent we developed using this system and its ability to remember events in the blocks world domain. (shrink)

DBS Think Tank IX was held on August 25–27, 2021 in Orlando FL with US based participants largely in person and overseas participants joining by video conferencing technology. The DBS Think Tank was founded in 2012 and provides an open platform where clinicians, engineers and researchers can freely discuss current and emerging deep brain stimulation technologies as well as the logistical and ethical issues facing the field. The consensus among the DBS Think Tank IX speakers was that DBS expanded in (...) its scope and has been applied to multiple brain disorders in an effort to modulate neural circuitry. After collectively sharing our experiences, it was estimated that globally more than 230,000 DBS devices have been implanted for neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. As such, this year’s meeting was focused on advances in the following areas: neuromodulation in Europe, Asia and Australia; cutting-edge technologies, neuroethics, interventional psychiatry, adaptive DBS, neuromodulation for pain, network neuromodulation for epilepsy and neuromodulation for traumatic brain injury. (shrink)

Should we defer to or strongly prefer the majority opinion in theology, whether it be the majority opinion over the history of the church (as in G. K. Chesterton’s “democracy of the dead”) or the majority opinion of contemporary theologians? I argue that because of the vast differences in accessible evidence between past and present-day theologians, diachronic majority opinion is not a good indicator of where the truth lies. In the synchronic case, ignorance of minority arguments, biases, selection effects, and (...) the difficulty to deciding who gets to vote present many opportunities for majorities to be wrong. Finally, I consider whether the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit could rescue the democracy of the dead, but conclude that given the gentle way God corrects us, diachronic majority opinion, apart from belief in a very basic set of truths, is not epistemically bolstered by the Spirit. (shrink)

들뢰즈와 아감벤은 철학의 영역에서 법을 사유하는 중요한 현대적 이론들을 제공하는 철학자들이다. 들뢰즈의 법에 대한 연구는 그 자신의 시간론과 밀접한 관계를 맺고 있다는 점에 그 특징이 있으며, 아감벤의 법에 대한 연구는 자신의 철학의 핵심 개념인 배제-포함 구조를 통해서 사유한다는 점에 그 특징이 있다. 그런데 두 사람은 모두 카프카를 경유하여 두 사람의 핵심적인 문제의식으로 나아간다. 먼저 들뢰즈는 카프카의 「법 앞에서」에서 우리에게 인식될 수 있도록 그 내용이 주어져 있지 않은 법이 우리에게 처벌을 내림으로써만 언표된다는 것을 읽어낸다. 더 나아가 『소송』에서 K에게 완전한 무죄판결이란 없으며 (...) 오직 판결을 ‘지연’시키는 방법만이 있을 수 있다고 말하는 화가 티토렐리에 주목하면서, 법과 시간의 문제를 탐구한다. 아감벤은 데리다의 「법 앞에서」에 대한 해석을 경유하여 카프카에 접근한다. 데리다는 열린 문 앞에서 들어가는 것이 ‘가능하지만 지금은 안 되는’ 바로 이 상황이 우리를 둘러 싼 법과 우리의 관계라는 점에 주목한 바 있다. 법에 대한 접근 가능성은 ‘지금은 안 된다’는 방식으로 무한히 지연된다는 것이다. 아감벤 역시 이러한 들어갈 수 있는 자유가 있음에도 불구하고 들어갈 수 없는, 그래서 자유롭지도 자유롭지 않지도 않은 법과 우리의 관계를 배제-포함 구조로 설명한다. 그렇기 때문에 아감벤의 카프카 읽기는 법이 그 내용이 주어져 있지 않음에도 우리를 강제하고 있음을 의미한다는 들뢰즈의 사유와 만나게 된다. 이 연구는 들뢰즈와 아감벤의 법 해석을 함께 탐구함으로써, 두 사람이 말하는 법의 강제로부터 우리를 해방시키는 방법과 그 의의를 밝혀본다. (shrink)

Meaning in life has been widely recognized as a hallmark of psychological well-being and positive youth development. The goal of this study was to validate the Korean version of the Meaning in Life in Children Questionnaire utilizing the framework suggested by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Data were obtained from 277 fifth graders aged 10–11 in three elementary schools in Seoul and Gyeonggi through a paper-and-pencil survey. We translated the MIL-CQ, a 21-item self-report measure developed based on Frankl’s (...) “meaning triangle,” into Korean. Psychological well-being measures were also assessed. Validity and reliability data were collected. The content of domains and items was appropriate for measuring MIL among children. A three-factor model consisting of attitude, creativity, and experience pathways was extracted via exploratory factor analysis, and a three-factor hierarchical model including attitude, creativity, and experience as first-order factors and MIL as a second-order factor was confirmed via confirmatory factor analysis. Higher levels of MIL were related to higher levels of satisfaction with life, self-esteem, positive affectivity, and lower levels of negative affectivity. All item fit statistics were acceptable based on the Rasch model. The analysis of the measurement invariance of each item showed that the responses to one item varied by gender, suggesting that additional items might facilitate better measurement of MIL in children. This study provides validity and reliability evidence that K-MIL-CQ is appropriate for measuring MIL among South Korean elementary school students. (shrink)

This paper outlines new work in cross-cultural psychology largely drawn from Nisbett, Choi, and Smith (Cognition, 65, 15–32, 1997); Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310, 2001; Nisbett, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why. New York: Free Press 2003), Ji, Zhang and Nisbett (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 57–65, 2004), Norenzayan (2000) and Peng (Naive Dialecticism and its Effects on Reasoning and Judgement about Contradiction. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, (...) Michigan 1997) Peng and Nisbett (Cross-Cultural Similarities and Differences in the Understanding of Physical Causality. Paper presented at the Science and Culture: Proceedings of the Seventh Interdisciplinary Conference on Science and Culture, Frankfort, K. Y. 1996), and Peng, Ames, & Knowles (Culture and Human Inference: Perspectives from three traditions. In: D. Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 1–2). Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000). The paper argues that the findings on cultural influences on inference-making have implications for teaching and education generally, and specifically for the debate on conceptions and misconceptions of Asian students studying in western tertiary institutions around the world. The position defended is that, while there seems to be compelling empirical evidence for intercultural differences in thought patterns, these patterns are, for the most part, insignificant in everyday exchanges, though language and culture might subtlety modulate our inference-making at the margins. Linguistic determinism however is not defended. Nonetheless, the evidence provides food for thought, and it needs to inform the recent debates about international students studying overseas. (shrink)