Blindsight and blindness blindness

Blindsight is a phenomenon in which people who are perceptually blind - who can't see - are able to respond to visual stimuli. 

In type 1 blindsight there is no awareness of visual stimuli, but subjects are able to 'guess' with high levels of accuracy such things as location, patterns or movement type.

Subjects with type 2 blindsight  have some awareness of, say, movement but there is no visual perception. This seems to be the result of such things as a person's awareness of his or her eye tracking motion which is functioning normally. Blindsight is the result of injury to the visual processing parts of the brain. 

Anton's Syndrome is a rare condition in which people who are blind deny their condition. Often, sufferers will make excuses for their lack of information, for instance by claiming that the light is bad, but they are not lying; they genuinely believe that they can see. 

Another form of the condition occurs when people who are paralyzed claim that they can walk; it is just that they are a little tired at the moment.

These conditions point up some of the problems with representative realism. In the first case people think they can't see but are plainly receiving some form of visual information and in the second two cases evidence from the senses is either ignored, fabricated or radically re-interpreted by the perceiver. 

Voyager

Voyager 1 is just about to leave the solar system. It is currently 10.8bn miles from Earth and has been en route since 1977. It now takes sixteen hours for messages travelling at lightspeed to reach it.

The probe is detecting a change in the particle flow around it and it will soon (in the next four years) be in interstellar space and completely free of the Sun's influence. You can read about it here.

As Douglas Adams said in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

Ted Honderich

Ted Honderich advocates strict causality and ‘hard determinism.’

Honderich rejects compatibilism on the grounds that our will is completely caused by prior events. He rejects all forms of incompatibilism that involve non-physical substances, dualist forms of agency, freedom as chance, or quantum mechanical indeterminism leading to the uncaused ‘origination’ of actions and decisions.

Honderich is ‘dismayed’ because the truth of determinism requires that we give up ‘origination’ or the ability to control our ‘life hopes.’ We could been the author of our own actions, we might have acted otherwise, (and thus be held accountable and morally responsible) but as he says:

We have a kind of life-hope which is incompatible with a belief in determinism. An open future, a future we can make for ourselves, is one of which determinism isn't true.

But we can take a ‘tough’ or intransigent attitude to our understanding that free will is incompatible with determinism and resist compromise with ideas like origination.

He argues as follows

• States of the brain are, in the first place, effects, the effects of other physical states.
• Many states of the brain, secondly, are correlates. A particular state accompanying a particular experience
• Some states of the brain, thirdly, are causes, both of other states of the brain and also of certain movements of one's body. The latter are actions. Some are relatively simple while others, are complex
• Simple or complex, however, all actions are movements, or of course stillnesses, caused by states of the brain.
•  It follows from the above  three premisses, about states of the brain as effects, as correlates and as causes, that on every occasion when we act, we can only act as in fact we do.
• It follows too that we are not responsible for our actions, and, what is most fundamental, that we do not possess selves of a certain character.

Adapted from Essays on Freedom of Action, ed. Ted Honderich, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973, p.187

In spite of this actions and thoughts being determined it does not follow that we will have no moral feelings. Moral approval and disapproval are affected by lack of free will but we still live in moral societies and may act to establish or maintain our moral standing.

Leopold and Loeb

The Leopold and Loeb case is interesting for two philosophical reasons. The first is that Clarence Darrow, their lawyer, used determinism as an argument in their defence. It was evidently effective as the defendants avoided the death penalty for kidnapping and murder.

The second reason is that Leopold and Loeb were influenced by Nietzsche and as highly intellectual 'super men' they thought they could commit the perfect crime. There is a good account of the case here.

Hume on Free Will

It is important to remember that Hume approached the problem of free will from a moral rather than a scientific point of view. In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Hume establishes that causation in never directly experienced but then goes on to argue that some degree of causation is essential for moral responsibility to have any meaning.

For Hume the key attribute to free will was 'will' or 'desire'. We are morally responsible for those actions which we actively will or desire but we are not responsible for any actions that we are constrained to do. As he says

By liberty, then we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may. Now this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to everyone who is not a prisoner and in chains.

Hume argues that we do not need to take moral responsibility for actions that are externally caused but that we do need to be responsible for internally caused (or willed) actions. Thus I am not to blame if I kick a puppy because a madman with a gun tells me to do it, but I am to blame if I spontaneously decide to kick the puppy. There are problems with this distinction however – it is possible to act according to the determination one's will but still be unfree as in the case of the drug addict or the kleptomaniac; which ‘internal’ causes should be regarded as ‘compelling’ in such cases?

Determinism and Relationships

In the following song Tim Minchin discusses the tension between relationships that are 'meant to be' and statistical ideas of likelihood.

Snow

Enjoy the snow day but don't forget the moral philosophy test which will now be on Monday.

Idealism

The two limericks below were composed by the theologian Ronald Knox as comments on one of the problems of Bishop Berkeley's idealism

There was a young man who said, "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."

Reply

Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd:
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by Yours faithfully, GOD.

Sapir Whorf

The Sapir Whorf hypothesis proposes that our world view is created by our language. It suggests that people with different ways of describing the world would see the world differently.  You can download a PowerPoint explaining the main points here.

The problem is that, as all human beings are equipped with roughly similar brains and sets of sensory equipment, any difference in world views is likely to be tiny and subject to dispute. The Piraha Indians are one candidate group for a significantly different world view but the claims made about them are hotly contested.

One test of the hypothesis would be if it were literally impossible to translate a concept from a particular language. All known languages do seem to be translatable, but it is intriguing to speculate about whether we would be able to speak to, say, dolphins, computers with artificial intelligence or space aliens. 

Time Travel

This week's New Scientist has an article on possible quantum time travel. This does not break any of the rules of Einstein's theory of relativity but only permits time travel back to the moment the time machine is created. We therefore know that time machines haven't been invented yet because we haven't met any time travellers. 

One of the fascinating phenomena that was mentioned in passing was a variation on the double slit experiment (see 12 Nov post) in which the detectors were telescopes positioned beyond the screen that shows the photons. Observing through such a telescope affected the outcome of the experiment and is an example of an effect that precedes its cause.

Happiness Index

The government is proposing setting up a happiness index. This is not as easy as it sounds as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill found. There is a useful article here on the philosophical implications of happiness that might be useful as an illustration in the exam.

The Piraha

The Piraha tribe are said to provide evidence against Noam Chomsky's theory of a universal grammar. Amongst the unique features of their language are:

• No numbers beyond two
• Lack of recursion in sentences
• No colour words except light and dark
• Entire set of personal pronouns borrowed from another language.

If the Piraha do not use the same conventions as every other known language doubt is cast on the innateness of our language ability. Debate over the Piraha language continues to rage. You can find out in detail about the Piraha tribe here. There is a detailed article on the Piraha language here.

Schrödinger’s Cat

Schrödinger’s thought experiment about a cat illustrates the idea of quantum superposition; until the cat is actually observed it exists in an indeterminate state in which it is both alive and dead. When the box is opened the indeterminate state collapses and the cat is either alive or dead.

In the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum theory the cat always lives and always dies; two separate universes diverge at the moment when the atom decays.

 

Richard Feynman, one of the world's greatest authorities on quantum mechanics said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".

The double slit experiment

Kant’s transcendental deduction

Kant proposed

• that a priori knowledge could be independent of the content of experience – in disagreement with the empiricists
• that pure a priori knowledge, without any empirical content, can only lead to limited deductions and conclusions about  possible experiences  - in disagreement with the rationalists.

In order to make sense of experience certain a priori, or transcendental conditions, seated in our minds, must exist; they are not provided by experience in general or indeed by a combination of sets of experiences.  

Ideas like time, space and cause are, according to Kant, pure a priori forms without which human beings would not be able to process the world of experience. Specifically, we would not be able to operate in the rule governed world we find ourselves in unless our minds came pre-equipped with concepts such as cause, time and space. The claim that synthetic a priori knowledge is necessary is known as Kant's transcendental deduction and it is the central argument of his Critique of Pure Reason.

Kant’s transcendental deduction brings the perceiver and subjective experience into accounts of the world. Time is not some disembodied clock that that ticks away irrespective of the observer, as Isaac Newton thought; it is an aspect of how the individual interacts with the world. Kant’s insights into the subjective nature of knowledge chime well with Einstein’s concepts of time and space being relative to the observer.

Emotivism

Emotivism claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions that can be verified in the real world but merely emotional attitudes. Emotivism in its current form was developed by A. J. Ayer in his 1936 book Language, Truth and Logic and in later works by C. L. Stevenson.

Ayer, a logical positivist, states that there is no observable truth value in a statement like

stealing is wrong.

At best, the statement expresses my opinion that stealing is wrong. Moral statements, according to Ayer, are little more that noises of approval (hurray) or disapproval (boo); emotivism is thus sometimes known as the boo/ hurray theory.

Ayer admitted that a statement like stealing is wrong implied both that the speaker disapproved and that others should also do so. The statement has more ‘force’ than a simple statement of fact but it does not amount to an imperative.

Moral universalism and moral relativism and moral nihilism

Moral universalism is the claim that that there are moral values that are independent of any given social or historical context. Many religious ethical systems make this claim but so do deontologists and utilitarians.   Sartre, an existentialist, states that because all human beings have the same needs and desires they share a universal human condition which makes all people everywhere morally equivalent. The United Nations Declaration of human rights is an example of a universalist approach to ethical issues in the modern world.  

Moral relativism refuses to make any large claims about the human condition and views morality as socially, geographically and historically variable. In acknowledging the differences between moral laws in different times and places the moral relativist usually reserves judgement on varied systems of morals so that no system can claim to be better than any other. Acceptance of moral relativism makes moral progress difficult or impossible as, if all systems are equal, there is no reason to change moral beliefs.

Moral nihilism denies that moral values are in any sense a feature of the real world and states that no action is inherently right or wrong.    

What sex is the soul?

In today's 'In Our Time' programme on women's contribution to the Enlightenment it was suggested that Descartes' dualism, with its emphasis on the soul as separate from the body, might have contributed to more egalitarian attitudes to the education of women. This is in stark contrasts to the supposedly egalitarian Rousseau who said

The education of women should always be relative to that of men. To please, to be useful to us, to make us love and esteem them, to educate us when young, to take care of us when grown up, to advise, to console us, to render our lives easy and agreeable; these are the duties of women at all times, and what they should be taught in their infancy

Ethical ignorance

The Is-Ought Gap

Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.

This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

Hume is simply pointing out that no observations of the state of the world (what is) can give us guidance on morality (what we ought to do). People make links but are never able to demonstrate the logical connections when challenged.

Ethical Egoism

The idea that acting in our own best interest is somehow also in the best interests of others is an attractive on as it allows selfish behaviour to be justified. Some philosophers like Hobbes assert egoist positions in a spirit of regret, whereas thinkers like Nietzsche and Rand celebrate the strong willed individual who is best able to pursue his or her own goals. Fuller notes are here. 

Descartes Meditation 1 - some notes

Notes on Meditation 1 are here. Look again at this meditation with the criticisms in mind. Is Descartes fundamentally wrong from the start or is his methodology at least partially productive?










Rene Descarpes doubts his own memory.

Mirror Neurons

Mirror neurons were first observed in the late 1980s and are still the subject of intense scientific study and speculation. Put simply mirror neurons fire in brains when actions are observed or when someone is observed being touched. They allow us to put ourselves in other people's shoes and imagine actions and feelings from their point of view. 

This is ability to tell what another person or animal is up to is very useful as a way of avoiding predators but it is even more useful in promoting empathy. If we can see things from someone else's point of view we are more likely to respond positively to them. Social interactions are also much easier if you have some idea what others are likely to be thinking. Mirror neurons also explain why yawning is contagious.  


There is a very full Wikipedia account of mirror neurons here.

Moral-Baby Experiments

There is a very long article on the moral life of babies here. The section on different coloured shapes is on page 4 under the heading Moral-Baby Experiments. The whole article is worth reading, both for its insights into an early sense of fair play and for the details of how researchers find out a little of what babies are thinking.

Dogs and fair play

Dogs refuse to play ball if they are treated unfairly according to this Guardian article which is a report on the findings of an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. As the article points out the dogs' behaviour could be the result of envy rather than a sense of fair play. Other recent research has pointed out that dogs are highly sensitive to human behavioural signals and so a sense of fair play could have developed from living amongst primates.

The ring of Gyges

In Plato's Republic one of the characters mentions a magic ring that confers the power of invisibility. He suggests that someone in possession of such a ring would use it for self-interested reasons only.

Plato argues that this view ignores the state of the soul of the person who acts selfishly. We often experience internal, mental conflict between what we instinctively want to do and what we think we ought to do.

For Plato our souls are both rational and driven by desires and we are happiest when there is no conflict between these two parts. Desires can of often lead us into trouble and we have to curb them with reason.

An immoral person is some whose desires overrule his reason. Such a person will attempt to fulfil his desires regardless of whether they represent what that person needs.

When we are ruled by desire we are unable to see what is good and we often think that getting what we want will be better than acting morally. For Plato this is simply a mistake.

When reason is in charge we act virtuously. This has three effects.

• We know what is morally right and good.
• We are motivated to act morally and not immorally.
• We are happier as we do not suffer inner conflict.

Is Plato right about our desires? Do they always lead us into trouble?
Is he right about reason? Can we always use it to tell right from wrong?

Compare the responses of Gollum and Frodo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings when they were given a ring of invisibility.

Hume - Essay Concerning Human Understanding

Summaries of Hume's Essay Concerning Human Understanding can be found by clicking on the following links  

Of the Origin of Ideas 

Of the Association of Ideas

Sceptical Doubts

Solution to Sceptical Doubts

Of Probability

Necessary Connection

Of Liberty and Necessity

The Selfish Gene

There is a good Wikipedia article on this here. There is a very full discussion of biological altruism here. The section on But is it ‘Real’ Altruism? is very useful. Today's New Scientist reveals that evolutionary biologists are arguing once again about this topic.

For more on ideas about pleasure and pain read this article on the Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham

The Matrix and dualism

There is a very full discussion of the philosophical problems raised by this film here. Look in particular at the section headed Ghosts in the Machine: The Matrix as the Cartesian Evil Demon. There are also some interesting links and references at the bottom of the page that you may wish to follow up.

Altruism and empathy

Empathy is the ability to recognise the feelings of another creature. Not all human beings demonstrate empathy at all times, so it is surprising to find it in the animal kingdom. The following extract is from a New Scientist article which you can read in full here. You can find out more about bonobos here.
 

For a demonstration of primate empathy consider a zoo bonobo named Kuni. When she saw a starling hit the glass of her enclosure, she picked up the stunned bird and climbed to the top of the tallest tree . She carefully unfolded its wings and spread them wide, holding one wing between the fingers of each hand, before sending the bird like a little toy airplane out towards the barrier of her enclosure. But the bird fell short of freedom and landed on the bank of the moat. Kuni climbed down and stood watch over the starling for a long time. By the end of the day, the recovered bird had flown off safely.

The way Kuni handled this bird was different to anything she would have done to aid another ape. Instead of following some hard-wired helping scheme, she tailored her assistance to the specific situation of an animal totally different from herself. This kind of empathy rests on the ability to imagine the circumstances of another.

The State of Nature from Hobbes to Hume

Hobbes
The idea of the state of nature was developed by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. (1651) Hobbes viewed the state of nature as anarchic with ‘every man against every man’ and in this state he famously said that life would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’ However, he thought that people had a natural right to preserve their own liberty or safety. People were free to do as they liked but might be willing to give up some of their freedoms in return for greater security.
 

Hobbes also believed that a state of nature still existed in relations between nations.
 

Locke
In his Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690) Locke suggests that ‘The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it’ and that law is reason. Locke believed that social laws arose out of reasonable desires to protect life, health, liberty and possessions. He also thought that those who broke such laws could reasonably be punished. Unlike Hobbes, who started from first principles, Locke was partly influenced by Christian theology.
 

Rousseau
In The Social Contract (1762) Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggested that the bad habits outlined by Hobbes were merely the products of society. Rousseau thought people in the state of nature were neither good nor bad and without either vices or virtues since they had virtually no dealings with each other. However, the conditions of nature forced people to create societies for mutual benefit via social contracts.

Hume
David Hume rejected the neutral view of human nature of Rousseau and the naturally vicious view proposed by Hobbes. He also disagreed with Locke’s reliance on reason as a source of moral behaviour. He suggested that human beings are possessed of natural moral feelings that are then developed within the family and by society.

Descarte's taste in Philosophy

I was especially pleased with mathematics because of the certainty and clarity of its proofs; but I did not as yet realize its true usefulness; and, thinking that it was only useful in the mechanical arts, I was astonished that, since its foundations were so firm and solid, no one had built something higher upon it. To the contrary, I felt that the writings of the ancient pagans who had discussed morality were like superb, magnificent palaces which were built on mere sand and mud: they greatly praised the virtues and made them appear more exalted than anything else in the world; but they did they did not sufficiently teach how to know them. Often that which they called by the fine name of "virtue" was nothing but apathy, or pride, or despair, or parricide. 

Descartes' Discourse on Method

The meaning of things