How to Explain Miscomputation

Just as theory of representation is deficient if it can’t explain how misrepresentation is possible, a theory of computation is deficient if it can’t explain how miscomputation is possible. Nonetheless, philosophers have generally ignored miscomputation. My primary goal in this paper is to clarify both what miscomputation is and how to adequately explain it. Miscomputation is a special kind of malfunction: a system miscomputes when it computes in a way that it shouldn’t. To explain miscomputation, you must provide accounts of computational behavior, computational norms, and how computational behavior can deviate from computational norms. A secondary goal of this paper is to defend an (quasi-)individualist, mechanistic theory of miscomputation. Computational behavior is narrowly individuated. Computational norms are widely individuated. A system miscomputes when its behavior manifests a narrow computational structure that the widely individuated norms say that it should not have

How to think about satisficing

An agent submaximizes with motivation when she aims at the best but chooses a less good option because of a countervailing consideration. An agent satisfices when she rejects the better for the good enough, and does so because the mere good enough gets her what she really wants. Motivated submaximization and satisficing, so construed, are different ways of choosing a suboptimal option, but this difference is easily missed. Putative proponents of satisficing tend to argue only that motivated submaximization can be appropriate while critics of satisficing tend to criticize satisficing, as I construe it. The existing literature, then, leaves satisficing in a very bad state: there are no good arguments for it and there are three unanswered objections to it. This paper clarifies the distinction between motivated submaximization and satisficing and refutes the three most prominent objections to the claim that satisficing can be appropriate

When Transmission Fails

The Neo-Moorean Deduction (I have a hand, so I am not a brain-in-a-vat) and the Zebra Deduction (the creature is a zebra, so isn’t a cleverly disguised mule) are notorious. Crispin Wright, Martin Davies, Fred Dretske, and Brian McLaughlin, among others, argue that these deductions are instances of transmission failure. That is, they argue that these deductions cannot transmit justification to their conclusions. I contend, however, that the notoriety of these deductions is undeserved. My strategy is to clarify, attack, defend, and apply. I clarify what transmission and transmission failure really are, thereby exposing two questionable but quotidian assumptions. I attack existing views of transmission failure, especially those of Crispin Wright. I defend a permissive view of transmission failure, one which holds that deductions of a certain kind fail to transmit only because of premise circularity. Finally, I apply this account to the Neo-Moorean and Zebra Deductions and show that, given my permissive view, these deductions transmit in an intuitively acceptable way—at least if either a certain type of circularity is benign or a certain view of perceptual justification is false

Studies into cytauxzoon and helminth infections of bobcats (Lynx rufus) of Northwest Arkansas

The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of Cytauxzoon felis and gastrointestinal helminth infections in bobcats (Lynx rufus) of Northwest Arkansas, an area known to have numerous cases of cytaux in domestic cats. Sixty bobcat carcasses were collected from trappers located in Mulberry and Decatur, Arkansas. Blood samples from the hearts were used to isolate Cytauxzoon DNA. Next, a polymerase chain reaction ( PCR) procedure coupled with gel-electrophoresis assay for the 18s region of extracted DNA were used to determine the presence of the protozoan in the bobcats at the time of harvest. Out of the 60 bobcats, 54 (90%) were positive for the protozoan’s infection. These findings indicate a large reservoir of Cytauxzoon for possible infection of domestic cats. Along with the detection of Cytauxzoon felis, intestinal helminths of the bobcats were collected and identified. The isolated helminths included Alaria marcianae, Ancylostoma sp., Molineus barbatus, Taenia sp., Spirometra mansonoides, Mesocestoides lineatus, Aonchotheca putorii, Physaloptera praeputialis and Toxocara cati. All helminths found were previously shown to be common in omnivorous and carnivorous sylvatic as well as domestic mammals of the region. It is amazing that bobcats are able to withstand both parasitic infections concurrently, as they roam the forests of Northwest Arkansas

Efficacies of fenbendazole and albendazole in the treatment of commercial turkeys artificially infected with Ascaridia dissimilis

The goal of this research was to determine the extent of resistance that turkey roundworms, Ascaridia dissimilis, have developed to anti-parasitic chemicals used in commercial poultry operations. Roundworm infections in turkeys have resulted in monetary losses for the poultry industry for years, generally due to poor feed conversion. The infection itself is subclinical and many turkeys have a light to moderate worm burden. Since parasitisms are light, this leads to the infections being noticed only during processing. Ascaridia dissimilis infections consist of adult worms and developing larvae with the latter comprising most of the worm burden and causing the most damage. In this study, eggs were collected from A. dissimilis found in turkeys previously treated with various parasiticides and combinations thereof. These eggs were in turn used to instill artificial infections in turkeys on site. These artificially infected turkeys were then treated with fenbendazole or albendazole. A third group of birds was left untreated as a control group. Drug efficacies were determined based on parasite loads post treatment (at necropsy). The results of this study will improve current knowledge of chemical resistance associated with these drugs