Westphal, Jonathan - The future and the truth-value links: a common sense view

02/27/2009

Analysis, Vol 66 No 1 Jan 2006

This article gives an argument for the truth-value of future-tense sentences like 'I'm meeting with Johnson tomorrow.'  Author's intention is to show that future events can make current ones about it true or false when uttered, though we have to wait until the future happens to determine which.  He considers this the 'common sense view' that 'preserves bivalence' and also claims this conforms to Ockham's conception of time as given by Adams & Kretzman.  This is contrary to the Aristotelean view that future-tense sentences have no truth value.  

The problem with using the future to underwrite the truth-value of future-tense sentences is that you could get into trouble with a valid but unsound argument:

Let 'A' be a proposition about a future event E

1) if an event E is in the future, it isn't occurring now

2) E is in the future

3) E isn't not occurring

4) If A is true, E is now occurring

5) A is not true

6) A is false

Author believes that 4 is the false premise and wishes to re-write it to be:

4*) if A is true, E has occurred, or is occurring, or will occur.

Dummett offers a variety of views (that author expands upon) about the reality of the past, present, and future-- author likes this model, though it is 'still much too far away'.  To bring out the value of eternalism for making future-tense sentences true, author discusses how a future-tensed sentence could be true when we have to wait for it (that is, wait until the future becomes the present) for it to be true.  So 'I will meet Johnson' might be made true when I meet Johnson, except not really: the sentence 'I will meet Johnson' isn't made true when 'I meet Johnson', since the latter is a different sentence.  The easy solution to the 'toy' problem is to claim that both sentences express the same proposition, namely '[I] [meeting] [Johnson] [date]'.  This requires what Dummett calls 'truth-value links', which insist 'perforce' that if this proposition is true, it is true at all times, whether it has yet to occur, or has already occurred, or is now occurring.

The use of truth-value links bolsters only a conditional claim: if future-tense sentences can express true propositions, then present-tense sentences expressing the same proposition must be true once the future in question comes.

Westphal, Jonathan - The Retrenchability of 'The Present'

02/20/2009

Analysis, Vol 62 No 1 2002

This paper tries to undo the common problem of 'the present' as having no substance, no extension. St Agustine is quoted as framing the problem: the past just happened, the future is yet to happen. Anytime you look at a divisible section of time, some part is the future, some the past-- the present has no length. Author argues this is a fallacy of composition; Augustine insists that the whole of a unit of time must also be within one of its container units, e.g. the whole of 2001 must be within May 2001. Author argues this is an 'absurd' requirement, using a spatial analogy of 'here' in place of 'the present'. Yet the permissibility of using such a counter-example is disputed by GEL Owen, who defended the asymmetry of space to time for himself and Aristotle, on the argument that time past is irretreiveably closed while 'over there' and 'over here' is open, alterable. Author replies first by pointing out that he does not need to level symmerty between space and time for his analogy to be plausible. Secondly, author argues that 'the present' sometimes can count as a year, sometimes a month, depending on the context of use-- much like 'here'. Lastly, author points out that 'the present' is 'logically incomplete', requiring a determinant like 'day', 'epoch', 'election-cycle'. One curious problem might be that this doesn't seem to be the same with 'the future'.

Allen-Hermanson, Sean - Insects and the Problem of Simple Minds: Are Bees Natural Zombies?

02/13/2009

Journal of Philosophy, Vol 55 No 8 August 2008

This paper attempts to show that bees are natural zombies and lay out a kind of consciousness test for animals 'lower' on the phylogenetic scale from humans. The argument turns as follows: the phenomenon of blindsight can reasonably establish beliefs or proto-belief-like cognitive schemes without consciousness. Bees share analogous similarities with blindsighted chimpanzees, thus by analogy bees can be blindsighted-- like zombies. Author uses a representationalist theory of consciousness, which claims that the subjective nature of consciousness is exhausted by it's representational content. (pg390) There are two varieties of this theory, the FOT 'First-Order Thought' and the HOT 'Higher-Order Thought' theories. The major advantage of FOT is that it allows for non-human animals to have consciousness (pg391).

Author wants to use FOT but thinks that it is faced with a dilemma where it must either admit that anything that uses concepts/thinks/has beliefs is conscious, or that things that seem to employ proto-beliefs aren't doing so. (pg391) Author thinks that he can find a middle road where FOT doesn't fall into this trap by revising it into FOT*, where phenomenally conscious states are those sensory representations poised to construct first-order thoughts specific for action rather than conceptual adjustment and manipulation-- poised, 'abstract' [fuzzy?], non-conceptual 'dorsal-style'(pg406).

Author sketches FOT: phenomenal awareness depends on tokening first-order thoughts or judgments. FOT thinkers are Dretske, Tye, Kirk. (pg392-7) Author discusses the objection to the entire representationalist program is blindsight, which appears to give weird kinds of first-order thoughts but no consciousness. (pg397-408) The goal here is to discuss the problems with blindsight and conclude that though it is a difficult objection, it isn't devastating to FOT. One interesting discussion is about the 'two-systems' reply to blindsight where there is a 'ventral' and a 'dorsal' system of seeing, the former dealing with representing objects and the latter dealing with action with respect to those objects. (pg400)

Author moves to a study of purported blindsight in a monkey, where it is supposed to touch a button when there is 'no-stimulus' in the occluded field. Monkeys get this wrong by affirming 'no-stimulus' when there is one. But, on the other hand, under certain conditions they will also reliably find the stimulus when it is present (pg408-9) The next step is to imagine that there are some animals that are just like this naturally, 'natural zombies'. The honey bee is a possibility, something that shows world-mapping capabilities (proto-beliefs?) but probably couldn't distinguish whether there is a stimulus present or there is no stimulus, thus, author argues, establishing it as blindsighted, according to a theoretical scientific experiment he is proposing (pg410-413).

Read, Stephen - Monism: The One True Logic

02/06/2009


In this paper author attacks the logical pluralism of Beall and Restall, which tries to admit to classical, constructionist and situational logics as all equally valid. Author categorizes their argument as follows:
1. Validity (V) is defined as: (V) A conclusion 'A' follows from premises iff in any case the premises are true is also a case when A is true. (here cases are 'worlds' or 'constructions' or 'situations')
2. A 'logic' specifies the cases mentioned in (V)
3. There are at least two different specifications
(pg1)
Author represents Beall & Restall as reconstructing different times when (V) can be specified: in classical logic, (V) is preserved in 'complete and consistent situations' like 'worlds'. Constructive logic specifies (V) in possibly incomplete or indeterminate situations, and finally relevance logic specifies a logic that satisfies (V) in inconsistent situations. (pg1) Author now repeats Graham Priest's challenge to this account: take logic K1 and K2-- in K1 premises P imply conclusion C. In K2, P doesn't imply C. P is true. Is C true? Author argues this challenge forces the position that K1 is superior to K2 (K1 being classical logic here). (pg2-3)

Author believes that Beall & Restall's logical pluralism by trying to preserve truth under (V) will plunge into inconsistency (pg4), a major sticking point being the non-dialetheic paraconsistentist, who belives that Ex Falso Quodlibet (from a contradiction, anything follows) is invalid but also doesn't believe that contradictions can be true. (pg5-6) The Beall & Restall reply is to ask for not just truth-preservation but also relevance-preservation from (V), but author argues this doesn't fit the bill either (pg6).

The problem, author believes, is to try to write the semantics of non-classical logics in 'classical metalanguage'. This puts the classicist in an unfair advantage when evaluating validity (pg7). Author unravels this argument in the pages that follow (pg8-10), by the way examining the claims of Varzi and Yagisawa in trying to establish the coherency of possible impossible worlds. Author offers instead relevance logic as the one true logic and chastises Beall & Restall for 'combining non-classical theory with a classical metatheory' (pg9).