The open future, bivalence and assertion

It is highly intuitive that the future is open and the past is closed—whereas it is unsettled whether there will be a fourth world war, it is settled that there was a first. Recently, it has become increasingly popular to claim that the intuitive openness of the future implies that contingent statements about the future, such as ‘there will be a sea battle tomorrow,’ are non-bivalent (neither true nor false). In this paper, we argue that the non-bivalence of future contingents is at odds with our pre-theoretic intuitions about the openness of the future. These are revealed by our pragmatic judgments concerning the correctness and incorrectness of assertions of future contingents. We argue that the pragmatic data together with a plausible account of assertion shows that in many cases we take future contingents to be true (or to be false), though we take the future to be open in relevant respects. It follows that appeals to intuition to support the non-bivalence of future contingents is untenable. Intuition favours bivalence

Neural Correlates of Experience-Induced Deficits in Learned Vocal Communication

Songbirds are one of the few vertebrate groups (including humans) that evolved the ability to learn vocalizations. During song learning, social interactions with adult models are crucial and young songbirds raised without direct contacts with adults typically produce abnormal songs showing phonological and syntactical deficits. This raises the question of what functional representation of their vocalizations such deprived animals develop. Here we show that young starlings that we raised without any direct contact with adults not only failed to differentiate starlings' typical song classes in their vocalizations but also failed to develop differential neural responses to these songs. These deficits appear to be linked to a failure to acquire songs' functions and may provide a model for abnormal development of communicative skills, including speech

Modes of Participation

This paper focuses on the notion of ‘participation’ as it has been used in the social sciences throughout the twentieth century. It proposes that there are two main traditions of use—a ‘poorer’ and a ‘richer’ one—and it argues in favour of the second. It does this by examining how Simmel and Goffman, on the one hand, and Lévy-Bruhl and Durkheim, on the other, defined participation. Developed by Lucien Lévy-Bruhl in the first part of last century, ‘participation’ in the richer sense is today being given new live by sociocultural anthropologists such as Marshall Sahlins and phenomenologically inclined cognitive scientists such as Shaun Gallagher. The paper addresses the roots of the concept in Scholastic theology and proposes to show how central it can come to be to a sociocultural anthropology that is willing to take on frontally the challenges presently being posed by embodied cognition