Empirical Evidence and the Multiple Realization of Mental Kinds

This thesis explores the use of the concept \u27realization\u27 in the philosophy of mind. The primary focus is on the role realization plays in assessing or opposing identity theory. The history of the use of the concept of realization in the philosophy of mind is reviewed, and from that a set of desiderata to be used for assessing accounts of realization is extracted. The desiderata are applied to a sample account of realization proposed by Sydney Shoemaker. (2007) Next the application of \u27realization\u27 in contemporary contexts is considered, focusing on the idea that mental kinds are, potentially, multiply realized. Based on interpretations of results from research in the relevant sciences this thesis considers two kinds of strategies used to object to multiple realization, (1) arguments against the concept of multiple realization: the Grain Argument (Bechtel and Mundale 1999), and Shapiro\u27s Dilemma (Shapiro 2000), and (2) defeaters for alleged cases/examples of multiple realization proposed by Lawrence Shapiro and Thomas Polger: unification, individual differences, kind splitting, and abstraction and idealization. (Polger and Shapiro 2016) The thesis argues that, ultimately, these arguments hinge on the claim that there is no empirical evidence of multiply realized mental kinds. In response to this claim, the fourth chapter presents novel examples of multiple realization drawn from research in the cognitive neuroscience of language. There are three aspects from the study of language that are presented as examples of multiple realization: (1) language lateralization, (2) reading acquisition, and (3) second/multi- language learning. The analysis of these case studies applies Shoemaker\u27s account of realization as a framework for describing the empirical data as cases of multiple realization. Objections to, and defeaters for, these cases are considered and rejected. The thesis concludes by raising the possibility that mental kinds are realized by mechanisms. This proposal involves drawing connections between traditional questions/views from the philosophy of mind with a current research program from the philosophy of science; the view is particularly important in the philosophy of neuroscience and the philosophy of biology, known as \u27new mechanism\u27

Assessing the Federal Reserve's Measures of Capacity and Utilization

macroeconomics, federal reserve

SMARANDACHE FUNCTION JOURNAL, 4-5

This journal is yearly published (in the Spring or Fall) in a 300-400 pages volume, and 800-1000 copies. SNJ is a referred journal: reviewed, indexed, cited, concerning any of Smarandache type functions, numbers, sequences, integer algorithms, paradoxes, Non-Euclidean geometries, etc

A cognitive robot equipped with autonomous tool innovation expertise

Like a human, a robot may benefit from being able to use a tool to solve a complex task. When an appropriate tool is not available, a very useful ability for a robot is to create a novel one based on its experience. With the advent of inexpensive 3D printing, it is now possible to give robots such an ability, at least to create simple tools. We proposed a method for learning how to use an object as a tool and, if needed, to design and construct a new tool. The robot began by learning an action model of tool use for a PDDL planner by observing a trainer. It then refined the model by learning by trial and error. Tool creation consisted of generalising an existing tool model and generating a novel tool by instantiating the general model. Further learning by experimentation was performed. Reducing the search space of potentially useful tools could be achieved by providing a tool ontology. We then used a constraint solver to obtain numerical parameters from abstract descriptions and use them for a ready-to-print design. We evaluated our system using a simulated and a real Baxter robot in two cases: hook and wedge. We found that our system performs tool creation successfully

Washington University Record, May 21, 2004

https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/record/2004/thumbnail.jp

Jurisdiction and Discretion in Hybrid Law Cases

An everlasting debate in the federal courts field is which branch of the federal government has the power to control federal jurisdiction. While some commentators and judges assert that the judiciary has the implicit authority to refine the boundaries of its jurisdiction, others argue that Article III vests that authority with Congress only and judicial modification of jurisdiction is illegitimate. In focusing almost entirely on the constitutional legitimacy of the question, this debate has overlooked an important consideration: Even if the judiciary may legitimately wield discretion in setting its jurisdiction, is such discretion functionally appropriate? This Article argues that such discretion is not always appropriate. Relying on an empirical analysis of two decades of cases in one area of federal jurisdiction-hybrid law jurisdiction-the Article demonstrates that some jurisdictional questions are better resolved by simple, bright-line rules. Drawing on extensive scholarship studying rules and standards-which until now has not yet been applied in this field-the Article concludes that the particular (and often misunderstood) nature of hybrid law cases calls for a rule rather than a standard. This conclusion, while limited to the field of hybrid law jurisdiction, nonetheless suggests that the debate over judicial discretion in jurisdictional questions is too narrow. Only by considering functionality as well as legitimacy can the proper jurisdictional directives be formulated

THE KIOSK FOR DOCTORAL STUDIES IN THE US

The Kiosk is designed to reveal the compiled rankings of leading institution that is not exhaustive to include all of doctoral programs. I have, nevertheless, list the major follow-up institutions from the 2010 NRC report. Ranking for each program finally has been yielded by average number of 1996, 2010, and USNW ranking for the graduate programs. Hence the coverage in period is longitudinal possibly 1986 (the first year from last 1985 NRC) through 2020 (the last year for ten year interval of NRC practice, but not surely for every turn). The ranking of USNW graduate programs are mostly yearly, or changed with the interval of about three years for Natural and Social Sciences. The USNW ranking mostly was based on 2017-2018 version (eventually to determine the period of effect for this KIOSK), but in rare case, might be adjusted to avoid a sharp precariousness or in consideration of promotional equity